By Florence Irwin 



The Fine Points of Auction Bridge 

The Development of Auction Bridge under 
the New Count 



Auction High-Lights 

With a Full Exposition 
of 

The Nullo Count 



By 

Florence Irwin 

it 
Author of " Fine Points of Auction Bridge," 
"The Development of Auction Bridge." 



G. P. Putnam's Sons 
New York and London 
XLbc fmtckerbocfcer press 

1913 



*3* 



Copyright, 19 13 

BY 

FLORENCE IRWIN 

Second Printing 



Ube Iknfcfeerbocfter iprees, IRew HJorfe 



©CI.A3 54909 



PREFACE 

The world moves fast, and the Auction world 
is not a step behind the rest of it. There is 
needed, therefore, a further chronicle of the 
recent growth and development of the game. If 
you want to be up-to-date, your Auction, like 
your motor-car, must be "this year's model." 

It gives me distinct pleasure to be able to say 
that in these pages I do not find myself obliged 
to alter, or contradict, a single statement made 
in either of my former books, The Fine Points of 
Auction Bridge, and The Development of Auction 
Under the New Count. Numerous questions 
were under discussion when I wrote them; but, 
in each instance, I was sufficiently fortunate to 
take a position which time has justified, and 
from which there has been no occasion to retreat. 
Nor do I repeat here any of the information 
which I have given before. I merely record the 
growth of Auction and the additional matter 
which a year has brought forth. My previous 
books form the base of which this is the super- 
structure. 

iii 



IV 



Preface 



Much of my material has already appeared in 
The New York Times. The test-hands have 
been sent me from all parts of this country and 
several of them came from Europe. I have 
selected those which have aroused the greatest 
interest and discussion amongst readers of The 
Times on both sides of the ocean. 

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first 
book to treat of " Nullos. " " Nullos " form the 
latest and most absorbing question in the Auc- 
tion world to-day, and the demand for " a book 
about them" would, in itself be sufficient rea- 
son for the presentation of this little volume. 

F. L 

Hastings-on-Hudson, 
October, 1913. 



CONTENTS 



CHAPTER 

I. LATEST DEVELOPMENTS 

II. NULLOS 

III. TEAM-WORK 

IV. A FEW ARGUMENTS AGAINST PREEMPTIVE 

BIDS 

V. A WORD ABOUT NO-TRUMPERS 

VI. THE TWO-SPADE CALL, — PAST, PRESENT, AND 
FUTURE ..... 

VII. " PASSING A SPADE. " 

VIII. EXPOSED CARDS .... 



IX. THE TWO GREAT FLAWS OF THE AVERAGE GAME I40 



X. ON RULES 

XI. SYSTEMS 

XII. THIRTY-SIX TEST-HANDS 

XIII. DECISIONS 



PAGE 
I 

20 
65 

90 
IOI 

117 
125 
134 



155 
159 
I63 

257 



vi Contents 

CHAPTER 

XIV. THE HUMAN SIDE OF THE GAME 

XV. AN AUCTION "BROMIDE" , 

XVI. LUCK .... 



Auction High-Lights 



Auction High-Lights 



CHAPTER I 

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS 

Two great questions have recently shaken the 
Auction world. Taken in chronological order, 
they are " High Spades " and " Nullos. " Placed 
in accordance to the degrees of their importance, 
I should unhesitatingly reverse that order. 

To the fascinating subject of " nullos, " I 
shall devote a later chapter. "High spades' ' I 
have already discussed in an earlier book, but 
I have a few additional words to say. By "high 
spades, " I mean all spade-bids higher than two — 
"three spades," "four spades," "five spades," 
"wsix spades," and "seven spades." 

It is obvious, at the outset, that such bids are, 
of necessity, false bids. No sane person would 
bid three, four, five, six, or seven spades, and 
mean what he said. If he had a good spade- 

i 



2 Auction HigH-Lights 

suit, he would, of course, be bidding it as "roy- 
als." The high-spade bids are therefore a 
system of set artificial bids. 

The bid of "one spade," to show a poor hand, 
is a necessary result of the dealer's forced bid. 
If he must bid, and cannot bid, it would be ri- 
diculous to demand that he bid legitimately. If 
he does not hold the material for a legitimate bid, 
he certainly cannot make one. By forcing him 
to bid on a hand which does not warrant it, 
we drive him to the only defense possible, — a 
bid which is the lowest one he can possibly 
make, which shows on its face that it means 
nothing (else he would bid "a royal") , and which 
gives his partner the least possible difficulty in 
extricating him. As long as the dealer's forced 
bid remains, the bid of "one spade" on a poor 
hand must also remain. It is not illegitimate; 
it is merely defensive. 

The bid of "two spades" has existed as long 
as Auction. It was a necessity under the old 
count, and became too much a matter of habit 
to be dropped when we adopted the new count. 
Although I do not use it, and do not consider it 
necessary any longer, yet I should never dream 
of trying to dislodge it from its vantage-place 
in the affections of Auction players. I shall 
devote a later chapter to its proper use. // is 9 



Latest Developments 3 

according to my opinion, the only conventional 
call for which there is the slightest excuse. 

Long ago, the great game of Whist was 
nearly strangled by the complicated " systems' ' 
put forward by various would-be authorities. 
Nothing but a strong reversion toward sim- 
plicity saved it. Artificiality almost dealt its 
death-blow. Let us not deliver Auction into 
the hands of the Philistines! 

Three months prior to the launching of the 
tabulated " high-spade' ' bids, several of those 
bids came to me from a source entirely different 
from the one which eventually sponsored them. 
They were told me more as a joke than as any- 
thing else ; the men were using them occasionally 
at the clubs, but laughing while they used them. 
I mentioned them to my classes and in the 
columns of The Times , but not seriously — 
because I did not consider them a thing to 
recommend. I have never changed my mind 
about that! 

I am told that several years ago, the exact 
"five-spade" bid of to-day (when bid over an 
adverse suit-bid) made its first appearance in a 
book of the day. It was tried as long ago as that, 
evidently found wanting, and abandoned! 

In playing with persons from other countries, I 
find constant relief and approval when I say that 



4 Auction HigH-LigHts 

I play entirely without artificial conventions. 
It would be impossible to establish any one 
artificial system universally; if one is permitted, 
thousands may arise. A couple of hours' con- 
versation on the subject of "systems" would 
not be too much to establish a mutual compre- 
hension between two prospective partners who 
had never met before, and who came from differ- 
ent localities. Is that desirable? 

It is not my intention to explain all the " high- 
spade" bids here; I have done that in a previous 
book. The players who sponsor them do not 
stop at high spades. They have also an elab- 
orate system of suit-bids — showing combina- 
tions that call for opening-bids of one, two, and 
three, respectively. Taking it all in all, there 
are seventeen artificial conventions. Seventeen 
totally unnecessary burdens to carry (for who 
will deny that good team-work existed between 
partners before these conventions arose?)! 
Seventeen stumbling-blocks placed in the path 
of sane and natural bidding! And with no 
ultimate change of results to warrant them! 
If four players all use these conventions, they 
cannot all play more hands by this combining 
of cards. If one pair of partners gets one 
desirable declaration as the result of a jack-suit 
"call," their adversaries will capture the next 



Latest Developments 5 

desirable declaration by precisely the same 
means. Thus everything is equalized, the 
Mecca is not attained, and the ultimate result 
remains the same though the beauty of the game is 
lost in attaining it, 

I have seen players who thought themselves 
extremely important and well-posted because 
they knew all these seventeen conventions. 
Why? I learned them in a half -hour; any aver- 
age player can do the same. Can you not 
commit a poem to memory? Or a r61e in a 
play? Or a set form of rules on any sub- 
ject? I am sure you have all done that many 
times and thought nothing of it. I can play 
"high spades' ' at one table half the evening, 
and then go for the other half to another 
table and dispense with them and be glad of 
the change. It is like saying your little pre- 
arranged speech or poem, or not saying it. 
That is all! 

I have spoken of "capturing desired declara- 
tions' ' by making conventional "calls" on jack- 
suits; those are the happy occasions when your 
partner's hand fits your demands and he re- 
sponds as you desire. But think, oh think, of 
those awful (and numerous) times when his 
hand does not fit ! When he has absolutely no 
material on which to respond, yet does not 



6 Auction HigH-LigHts 

dare to pass! Those are the times, the awful 
times, when the fallacy of the conventions is 
shown up. 

Suppose you have six spades to the jack and 
but one other possible trick in your hand; I 
say that it is far safer to bid "a spade," than to 
call for royals by bidding "four spades." With 
a hand such as yours, your partner must have 
general strength, or a good suit, to get you out of 
your call (by which you are committed to a 
contract for four-odd tricks) . If he has general 
strength, or a good suit, let him be the one to 
make the declaration. If he has neither, you 
are both in a box, and put there by your open- 
ing declaration. Oh, the "calls" that I have 
seen fail, provided the adversaries have had sense 
enough to pass! 

There is the crux ! No adversary should 
ever be sufficiently obliging as to bid against a 
conventional call. Let the partner of the 
conventional bidder be the one to relieve the 
situation! Sometimes it does not inconven- 
ience him, and then the adversaries can bid 
later. Sometimes it inconveniences him seri- 
ously — and that is the adversaries' chance for 
penalties. Never bid against an adverse conven- 
tional bid. Wait till the partner has lifted that 
burden! 



Latest Developments 7 

The success of conventional bids depends 
largely on the bids of the adversaries. If each 
player is so anxious to bid that he would rather 
mention a little two-penny suit (by which he 
may manage to score six, or twelve), than leave 
his adversary "in" with a false bid, then the 
conventional bids are not a serious inconvenience 
to their makers and to the partners of those 
makers. But suppose a dealer opens with a 
conventional call on a jack-suit; suppose the 
adversaries hold all the high cards in that suit 
and every other, and are blessed with sense 
enough to hold their tongues ! Then what about 
the dealer and his partner? 

The success of conventional bids depends largely 
upon the inability of the adversaries to hold their 
tongues. Grant them the wisdom to do this, and 
you number the days of the conventional bid! 

Let me illustrate by a few particular instances. 
Some show how dangerous, and others how 
unnecessary, are conventional calls. 

Z dealt and made the royal-call of "four 
spades, " on this hand: 

^ A76 

* 95 
73 
j|t J98653 



8 Auction Hig'h-LigHts 

That, you see, is a perfect royal-call — if 
you use calls: six spades to the jack, and 
an outside ace. It is the kind of hand that 
conventional bidders consider "too good to 
waste. " 

A was wise enough to "pass" on these 
cards : 

^ K52 

Q10 5 
4 A Q 10 7 2 

A could bid "a royal, " or he could bid "a no- 
trump" — but why should he? All the con- 
ventional bidders I have met would take it for 
granted that any player holding A's cards would 
bid against a royal-call. This A did n't. He 
saw Z with a ten-trick contract that he could n't 
possibly keep; to beat it was worth fifty a trick 
for all tricks over three; to bid royals was to 
make nine a trick for every trick over six. The 
thing is not to play the most hands — it is to 
make the most you can on your cards. A might 
have doubled, but it would have been useless, 
for no conventional bid stands. He had the 
chance of his life — he took it and left the re- 
sponsibility up to Y. 



Latest Developments 9 

Y held this lovely combination (and his bid 
was demanded) : 

V 9843 
Jfr Q 10 8 7 3 

J982 
♦ — 

Was n't that an enviable position? Anything 
he attempted was doomed to failure. 

If Y allowed "four spades' ' to stand A-B 
could make 400. That, you see, is better than 
bidding and going game — even with a slam! 
It is better than two games — 150 points better 
than a rubber ! 

And if Y made a bid, as of course he must, it 
would be heavily defeated. B's hand, you see, 
held these cards : 

9 QJ10 
AK64 

Suppose Y tried a bid of "two clubs." B 
could double and make 500 — the value of two 
rubbers. Hearts and diamonds would also be 
disastrous, and Y could hardly be expected to 



io Auction HigH-Lig'Hts 

say " a royal" without a spade in his hand. If he 
did, B might bid and relieve the situation for him ; 
but if B passed A could break the rule against 
doubling one-bids — he could double the royal, 
because he could see that Z-Y were in a desperate 
strait and could be defeated at anything. 

I have repeatedly seen similar situations! 
Try passing the high conventional bids when 
your adversaries make them; let your own bid 
wait over till the second round, no matter how 
good it looks; if the third hand bids you will 
have your chance to bid over him, and the third 
hand is absolutely forced to bid. 

One of the worst points about conventional 
bids is that they absolutely presuppose luck — 
the luck that your partner may hold what you 
want him to hold. Granting luck, you can win 
with high spades or without them; failing luck, 
you are far safer without them. 

Here is another hand that shows how easily 
the "five spade' ' bid can be dispensed with. 
The dealer opened with " one no-trump/ ' on 
the following hand : 

£ AQJ764 
AKQ 

* AK 



Latest Developments II 

Second hand and third hand passed, and 
fourth hand said "two hearts." This killed 
no-trump for the dealer, because he did not stop 
hearts. The stock conventional bid for a 
situation where you want to play no-trumps but 
fail to stop the adversary's suit is "five spades." 
To begin with, the bid is inadequate, — which 
only goes to show that it is impossible to form a 
table of stock bids that will always bridge over 
difficult situations; you might as well stop before 
you begin. But this dealer did not use con- 
ventional bids anyhow; he would not have bid 
"five spades" even if it had been possible. See 
how he handled the matter! He said "three 
clubs," — showing that he was perfectly willing 
and able to play that bid, but that the heart-bid 
had killed his no-trumper. But the point is 
that his bid was legitimate and meant what it said; 
he could be left with it, and could play it. 

Second hand passed again, and the dealer's 
partner, having the hearts twice stopped, over- 
called with "two no-trumps." Thus perfect 
concerted action was attained independently of 
any false bids. 

This is only one of the many positions that 
may arise. But to all of them there are solutions 
that will be very evident and very satisfactory to the 
expert player, — and which will give far more 



12 Auction Hig;H-LigHts 

scope to his subtlety than will the use of false bids 
made in set forms of words quite foreign to the 
meaning they convey. 

I say that there are always ways to solve 
these difficulties; ways that are delightfuly 
delicate and that require thought and skill. 
In comparison with them the dull use of a set 
speech prepared by some one else and repeated 
like a parrot seems singularly primitive, arti- 
ficial, and devoid of personal thought. 

There is another point about conventional 
calls; they give a " photograph' ' of the bidder's 
hand to two adversaries and only one partner. 
The advantage of this specific information to 
clever adversaries, who are wise enough to pass 
and to take advantage of what they have been told, 
is sometimes very great. Witness this proof: 

Z dealt and made the "royal-call" of "four 
spades." A was wise enough to pass; he held 
some clubs and a singleton king of spades. Y 
(third hand) could n't pass, yet he did n't care 
to bid royals; he held the three smallest spades 
in the pack, and knew that his partner lacked 
the ace and king, possibly even the queen. He 
had a much better line of hearts than his partner 
had of royals, and his hearts were better as 
trumps than as side suit, because they were long 
and scattered; with a short, compact suit of 



Latest Developments 13 

hearts, Y would have used them as a side suit 
to the royals ; but with six scattered hearts that 
dropped from the ace-jack, he felt that they 
should be trumps. He bid " two hearts." 

B sat fourth, with the king — queen — small of 
hearts, and four spades headed by the ace and 
queen. He knew that Z must have made his 
opening "call" on a jack-suit, and he reasoned 
that if Y had held an honor in the suit he would 
have responded to the call. He therefore placed 
the king in A's hand — and rightly. He led a 
small spade to that king, a thing he would never 
have dreamed of doing, failing Z's opening calL 
A took with his singleton king and led a club, 
which B took with the ace. B then led his ace 
and queen of spades, on which A discarded two 
losing diamonds, first the nine and then the six, 
to show he had no more. B immediately led a 
low diamond which A trumped and led trumps 
through Y, enabling B to make both his king and 
queen. Thus the bid of " two hearts " was set, 
simply because of the information furnished to 
B by Z's opening royal call. It positively 
denied the king of spades. Had Z opened with 
"a spade," A would have passed and Y would 
have bid "one heart," but B would never have 
led as he did. No one leads a small card from 
ace- queen and two small as an original lead. 



14 Auction Hi^K-LigKts 

Failing that lead, A would never have made his 
singleton king and would not have been able to 
discard his two losing diamonds. 

That, you see, is the reverse side of the picture. 
By endeavoring to give his partner specific 
information (that proved valueless after all), 
Z gave his adversaries a tremendous advantage. 

But it is in the name of sportsmanship that I 
voice my chief objection to set calls. From time 
immemorial it has been conceded that in a card 
game " specific information by word of mouth' ' 
should be barred. Such information is supposed 
to be given by the play of cards; that calls for 
skill, and it also demands that the necessary 
cards shall be held. There is always the sporting 
chance that they are lacking, and then it is a 
play of wits to counteract that lack. Nothing 
but sudden paralysis of the tongue could in- 
convenience the player who announces his 
combinations by speech. 

Of course, when you lead a king it means you 
hold the "ace, the queen, or both." But that 
information is given by the play of cards. There 
is also the chance that you are leading " short. " 
Of course, again, when you bid "a heart," your 
information is conveyed by word of mouth, but 
it is not specific. Your suit may be headed by 
the ace, or king, or both, or (possibly) neither; 



Latest Developments 15 

it may be short and strong, or long and scattered. 
You are giving no " photographs. " And you are 
able and willing to play your bid! 

How would you like a system by which a bid 
of u one heart," would mean " partner, I am 
headed by the ace, " and a bid of "a heart," 
would mean " partner, I am headed by the king?" 
How would that appeal to your sporting in- 
stincts? Yet it would be quite fair if all four 
players understood the signal. But would n't 
it strike you as rather flat? That is the way 
conventional bids always strike me. 

I ranged myself against them in the beginning, 
and have never had the slightest cause to regret 
my position. They are played locally, — notably 
in the city of their birth. I do not believe that 
they will ever be universal, or even that they 
will spread greatly. I know a number of players 
who were rather taken with them at first, who 
have now discarded them entirely. The propor- 
tion of well-known experts who are ranged 
against them is tremendous. At one time I 
considered them a serious menace, but they 
worry me no more. 

At the time when the discussion of conven- 
tional bids was raging, I was opposing them in 
the columns of The New York Times. I received 
hundreds of letters congratulating me on the 



16 Auction HigH-LigHts 

position I had taken, and hundreds of criticisms 
of the new bids. One person after another, one 
letter after another, reiterated the opinion : "That 
is n't the way to play Auction !" I have chosen 
a few extracts from these numerous letters which 
I append here. 

The first was from Boston: "If ever there 
was a timely discussion invited, it is the question 
of the new form of bidding. At our club it is 
difficult to tell whether one is playing Auction or 
football — the signals gradually getting to be 
about equal. I strongly advocate the cutting 
out of all signals. ... It is up to you and the 
other Auction writers to advise decisive action 
now, as otherwise you will have independent 
rules made by clubs. In our club we are con- 
sidering the posting of a notice that signal bids 
shall not be allowed. All our best players are 
disgusted with the way the game is going, and 
feel disposed to cut away from the rule writers. 
Therefore, help the cause along!" 

This came from New York: "I was very 
much interested in your discussion of the pro- 
posed spade conventions in The Times. I am 
heartily in sympathy with your attitude in the 
matter, and my vote on the matter is the same 
as yours. 

From New Bedford : "You may put down our 



Latest Developments 17 

circle here, 'as agreeing with you about the 
high-spade bids. We have used four of them 
constantly and while they averaged fairly well, 
not sufficiently well to tack on to a game that is 
sufficient unto itself. If Auction keeps advanc- 
ing (?) I, for one, am going back to tiddledy- 
winks. . . . The more there is of it, the less 
there is to it." 

From Connecticut: "You are quite right. 
Discard the whole outfit of conventions, and 
make it a real game. " 

From New Jersey: "Our coterie has been 
testing the high-spade bids, and beg to agree 
with you, 'dispense with all of them.' Your 
lucid discussion might well tempt to that final 
verdict/ ' 

This correspondent went on to speak of the 
frequent inconvenience caused to the partner of 
the player using the high-spade calls. 

11 1 desire to submit what I consider the logical 
development of the conventional spade bid; if 
this is to remain a feature of the game, the latter 
is surely in its infancy, and it were well for us to 
hasten the evolution to its destined issue. 

"There are five suits. If we have a 'make* in 
any of these, we declare it. But if we have not, 



1 8 Auction HigH-LigHts 



we may have an 'assist' for one of them; or we 
may have a hand that is an ' assist ' for two of the 
five . . . That is, we may hold, besides 
definite makes in the five suits, any one of fifteen 
possible combinations. If we discard the club 
assist, and the diamond assist, as being of least 
value, we still have thirteen different hands 
requiring signals, or conventional bids. . . . 
Thirteen, or even fourteen, conventional bids! 
This cannot fail to satisfy the most ardent 
supporter of the new game. I almost fear that 
the advancing of this suggestion may cause the 
more fanatical devotees of the conventions to 
seize upon it seriously as the ultimate solution 
of their problem. 

"The game of Auction is much too interesting 
to be mutilated in its simplicity by a complicated 
system of 'wigwagging' — a system evolved for 
the purpose of allowing 'better' bidding! How 
absurd! And if it is logical to have such a 
system it is perfectly logical to develop it as 
above, to cover all possible combinations. I 
really wish that my suggestion would be seized 
upon, because I believe that it would soon show 
the absurdity of conventional bids, and cause 
them to die a natural (but accelerated) death. 

"Perfection in combining hands is easily 
attained by laying all the cards on the table, and 



Latest Developments 19 

the conventional bid is a positive step toward 
that ideal (?)!" 

Isn't that delightful? And logical? And 
conclusive? 

I could continue indefinitely to pile testimony 
upon testimony against the use of the high- 
spade bids, but I will close with what I consider 
one of the best quotations I have ever seen on 
this subject. It was in a booklet sent me by 
a member of the National Club, Toronto: 

"David Harum's maxim, i It is a good idea 
to be willing to let the other fellow make a 
dollar once in a while/ is as useful in Auction 
bridge as it is in a horse trade. " 



CHAPTER II 

NULLOS 

Auction has justly been called "a game of 
aces and kings." No matter what degree of 
skill you may possess, you cannot win if Fate 
insists on giving you all the poor cards ; you may 
see the victories going to players whom you 
know to be your inferiors, and you will have to 
admit that all the skill in the world is no match 
for luck. Of course, with skill you make more 
on good cards and lose less on bad ones ; but you 
cannot beat luck. 

This is discouraging, and it is the one blot on 
an otherwise perfect game. For some time we 
have felt that there was a certain lack in what 
has been aptly called "the defensive side of the 
game." We have longed for a means to dis- 
count luck and to give skill its proper chance. 

Of all non-athletic games, I suppose that 
Chess is the most perfect for the reason that it 
is ioo per cent, skill and no per cent. luck. It 
depends on no throwing of dice or dealing of 

20 



N\llloS 21 

cards, no outside element of chance exists and 
the outcome of the game lies solely and entirely 
with the skill of the players. 

Roulette, on the other hand, is ioo per cent 
luck and no per cent skill; but I do not think 
that any one would claim much mental stimulus 
for Roulette;- excitement there is, naturally, 
and the chance of " getting something for 
nothing, " and that is all. 

I once read an article by an Englishman who 
attempted to place the percentage of luck and 
skill in various games. To Baccarat he allowed 
2 per cent skill to 98 luck; and for " Whist, 
Bridge, and all their children/ ' the percentage 
was placed at 20 for skill and 80 for luck. Per- 
sonally I should place it at 40 for skill and 60 
for luck; a few players of my acquaintance (who, 
by the way, are proverbially good holders), 
reverse these figures, making it 60 for skill to 
40 for luck; and the general run of persons whom 
I have asked put it at 50 and 50. 

In any event, it is certain that the luck per- 
centage is too high ; to spend hours in thought and 
practice, to use every effort to perfect your 
game, and then to be forced to yield all your 
advantage simply because aces and kings refuse 
to come your way, is extremely discouraging, to 
put it mildly. 



22 Auction HigH-LigHts 

Any innovation which tends to increase the 
advantage of skill and to decrease the advantage 
of luck should be welcomed by Auction lovers ; 
any movement toward equalizing the value of 
the cards would certainly help to bring the game 
up to the Chess level. 

It has long been apparent that the advantage 
of good cards over bad ones is the one drawback 
to Auction. It has been possible to sit an entire 
evening at an Auction table and never play a 
hand — when luck has run very badly. Even 
to the two partners who held all the cards this 
sort of victory was flat and tame. 

Which do you like better, a " pianola' ' hand 
or a hand where you have to tussle and fight for 
every point, and where the play of every card is 
vital? The latter, naturally, if you are a good 
player and prefer skill to luck. With a long run 
of pianola hands on your own side (hands that 
play themselves) , your skill is not demanded and 
your victory loses its savor. With a long run of 
such hands against you, there is nothing to do 
but to allow yourself to be walked over, and your 
interest naturally flags. It is when the game is 
"nip and tuck" that every player is keyed up to 
proper pitch. 

Would it be very interesting or very flattering 
for a tennis expert to win a match from an ad- 



Nullos 23 

versary who had equal skill, but who, in this 
particular match, was forced to appear with his 
right arm in a sling and three fingers broken on 
his left hand? 

Would you want to shoot against a man who 
had a thick bandage over both eyes? 

Certainly not. There is no satisfaction in 
beating a lame man or a cripple in a race. To 
beat adversaries as well equipped as one's 
self, by sheer force of skill, is a satisfactory 
victory. 

Does any one question the fact that the new 
count improved the game inexpressibly, when it 
brought the suit-values closer together and 
destroyed the undue advantage of red suits over 
black ones? Can any one doubt that an inno- 
vation that would make, "bad" cards valuable, 
and leave "good" ones equally so, would bring 
the game almost to the point of absolute 
perfection? 

And this is precisely what nullos will do. s 

They are the greatest equalizers I have ever 
known. Every time I use them in playing, I 
hug myself in sheer delight at the beautiful 
balance of the bidding. It is an artistic triumph. 
If one side holds all the high cards, and the other 
all the low ones, both sides are equally advan- 
taged as to bidding; no contracts are captured 



24 Auction HigfH-LigfHts 

too easily, forcing is possible, everybody is in the 
ring. It is perfectly delightful. 

There are already five suits on which a player 
may bid when he holds " good " cards; his object 
is to take as many tricks as possible; and the 
more he takes, the more he scores. 

It is now proposed to introduce one suit on 
which a player may bid when he holds "poor" 
cards; his object will be to take as few tricks as 
possible; and the fewer he takes, the more he 
scores. 

That, you see, is giving the crippled player his 
chance ; he may be as great an expert as the man 
who holds all the aces and kings, but his skill will 
avail him nothing if he never gets a chance to 
use it. 

Nullos are negative no-trumpers. They are 
a logical development of the game, — not a 
change, and that is their greatest advantage over 
every other innovation that we have had : They 
do not change the present game in the least; 
they simply leave it as it is, but add one more 
suit. They are not upsetting. Nothing has to 
be unlearned or altered; no confusion is caused 
in our present game; we simply must learn one 
thing more. 

The advantage of this fact is very great. It is 
tiresome to perfect one's self in a game, and then 



Nullos 25 

to find that the game is going to be played quite 
differently. The new count went to the root 
of things and forced us to reconstruct all our 
former ideas; but it was well worth the trouble. 
Suppose you had tried to hold out against it — 
where would you be to-day? 

"High spades," had they gained universal 
acceptance, would have upset our present game 
completely — in its bidding, at least. Moreover 
they are superficial; nullos are vital. They are 
an addition, — not a change! That is their first 
great point. 

The next is that they discount luck — and luck 
is a very elusive thing. For years we have longed 
to decrease the luck percentage in Auction 
and to increase the skill percentage, and now 
our chance has come. 

It is necessary to admit that they call for more 
skill, — both in play and in discard, — than does 
any other suit. The low cards are the important 
ones, and it is impossible to place low cards. 
High cards are shown by the bidding and by 
signals of play; low ones are not announced in 
any way, — and the difference between a deuce 
and a trey will often mar a nullo-bid. It has 
been claimed that nullos "are too difficult for 
inexpert players." No game is made for the 
inexpert. I remember that when Auction su- 



26 Auction HigH-LigfHts 






perseded Bridge, the same cry was raised, — ■ 
" poor players can never master it. " 

It was first proposed that the player of a 
nullo hand should be allowed to take no trick 
at all. This would be obviously impossible if 
he was forced to carry an exposed dummy, 
which he had not seen during the bidding, and 
whose high cards would be at the mercy of the 
adversaries. So dummy was to be thrown aside, 
and but three hands played. I objected stren- 
uously to this. The exposed dummy is the back- 
bone of Bridge and Auction. It was decided to 
retain the dummy, and to permit six safe tricks 
to the person playing "one nullo," five safe 
tricks to any one who got the declaration at 
"two nullos," etc. 

The proper trick- value for nullos was reached 
only after long experimenting. At first, it 
was thought that they must be placed at five 
a trick (just under clubs), or at eleven (just 
over no-trumps). The five-count proved in- 
adequate, — you could not force the no-trump 
hand. "Two nullos," would beat "one no- 
trump"; but if the no-trump hand went to two, 
it would take "four nullos" to beat it. 

The eleven count was too high. It destroyed 
the precedence of no-trump — the time-honored 
"King-bid." Also, it threatened an inundation 



Nullos 2J 

of nullos, — and that would be a catastrophe. 
We want to be able to bid on "bad" cards, but 
we do not want to make them more valuable 
than "good" ones! 

From the first, I suggested putting nullos 
in the middle of the line, — at seven a trick, — ■ 
and moving diamonds and clubs down to six 
and five respectively. Then there would be 
two suits lower, and two suits and no-trumps 
higher. It would make three minor suits — ■ 
clubs, diamonds, and nullos (negative no- 
trumpers) ; and three major suits, hearts, royals 
and positive no-trumpers. This, however, 
brought the objection that clubs would be hurt ; 
it would be impossible to go game with five-odd, 
on a clean score. 

Thus, nullos were placed at ten a trick, — the 
same as positive no-trumpers, — but the no- 
trump to take precedence in bidding. "One 
no-trump " would beat "one nullo," but they 
would both score ten, when played. And "one 
nullo" would beat a one-bid in any declared 
trump. 

We played them in this way for about a 
month, but the result was what I feared, — a 
preponderance of no-trumpers, either positive 
or negative. 

One of the best points of the new count was 



28 Auction HigH-LigHts 



that it released us from the overwhelming 
percentage of no-trump hands. We had almost 
forgotten how to play suit-bids. Nothing is so 
pretty as a suit hand; a good hand in hearts or 
royals is my idea of perfection. Now, with 
no-trumps and nullos both at ten a trick, both 
higher than any suit bid, we faced a return of 
this dilemma. 

The ideal count has at last been struck. 
Nullos are to be worth eight a trick, — the same 
as hearts, — but hearts take precedence in bid- 
ding. "One heart" will outbid "one nullo," 
but either will give you eight on the score. 

This, you see, is the exact suit- precedence for 
which I fought from the beginning. There are 
three minor-suits headed by a negative no- 
trumper, and three major-suits headed by a 
positive no-trumper, — and hearts and royals 
are not hurt. Neither are clubs, thanks to the 
happy device of giving two suits the same value. 

The honors were the next question. Some 
correspondents suggested that there should be 
no honors; others, that the aces should be the 
honors, and that they should be scored by 
the side that held them; still others urged the 
ingenious argument that as everything is re- 
versed in nullos, the honors should be the deuces 
instead of the aces. I think, however, there is no 



. 



Nvillos 29 

question as to the proper settling of the honors. 
In any no-trumper, whether positive or negative, 
the aces should be the honors. In a positive 
hand, they score positively; in a negative hand, 
negatively. If tricks score when you don't 
take them, honors should score when you don't 
hold them. That is, they score inversely; if 
one side holds thirty aces, the opposite side 
scores thirty honors. You don't score for 
anything actual — not for tricks that you take 
nor honors that you hold. You score for the 
tricks that you fail to take, and the honors that 
you fail to hold. Then everything is minus — ■ 
and logical. Minus tricks and minus honors be- 
long together. The other day the dealer bid 
"one no-trump" on a hand that held a hundred 
aces. I followed with "two nullos" on a hand 
that held nothing but trash. He did not dare 
to let me play nullos because his aces would 
then have counted for me ; I continued to overbid 
him till I got him to the point where he could 
not keep his contract. Failing nullos, his hand 
would have been a walk-over; even with nullos 
he would have yielded me my bid if he could 
have kept his aces. To obtain proper bidding 
and forcing, the aces must certainly count 
inversely. 

If you take more tricks than your contract 



30 Auction Hig'H-Lig'Hts 

calls for (not fewer, remember, but more), your 
adversaries score above the line for each over- 
trick. There was some talk of doubling the 
penalties against a nullo-bid, making them 
ioo undoubled and 200 doubled. This was be- 
cause, at first, it looked as though there might 
be an inundation of nullos, and we wanted 
to restrict ;hem. But as we play them longer 
we find how hard a high nullo-bid is to keep 
and how easy to defeat; if any one bids "three 
nullos" it is a safe gamble that most of the high 
cards lie against him and that their holders can 
bid on them. If any one succeeds in keeping 
a three-nullo contract, his cards are either so 
poor that he deserves a compensation, or his 
skill is very great, or both. He certainly de- 
serves all he gets on the hand. 

Thus, to sum up, nullos are negative no- 
trumpers; the object of every player is to take 
as few tricks as possible ; they are worth eight a 
trick for every trick named in the contract, and 
an extra eight for every trick under the contract. 
The adversaries score fifty honors for every 
trick over the contract that they can force upon 
the declarant. The honors are the aces, and 
score inversely. Though nullos and hearts count 
the same, the hearts outrank in bidding. 

The player who gets the bid at "one nullo" 



Nullos 31 

is safe if he takes but six tricks ; he scores eight 
for the odd that he fails to take, and an extra 
eight for every trick under six. If he bids 
"two nullos" he may take but five tricks; by so 
doing, he scores sixteen, and an extra eight for 
every trick under five. If he bids " three 
nullos," he may take but four tricks; by so 
doing, he scores twenty-four, and an extra eight 
for every trick under four. 

It is the exact opposite of no-trump. When 
you bid "one no-trump," you are safe if you 
take seven tricks, or more; when you bid "one 
nullo," you are safe if you take six tricks, or less. 

The novice in "nullos" is almost sure to over- 
bid and to get his fingers burned. An exposed 
Dummy, lying at the mercy of the adversary, is a 
big burden to carry. An unguarded king in the 
Dummy can always be made to take a trick. 

The partner of the nullo-bidder should over- 
call if his hand is a menace to a nullo-bid. And 
the original nullo-bidder must be very careful 
not to think of his own hand, alone; if his part- 
ner over-calls once, or if he continually refuses 
to raise the nullo-bid, then let the original bidder 
beware ! 

Nullos will not be played often; they will be 
bid more than played for the reason that the 
three major-suits still outrank them. Two 



32 Auction Hig'H-Lig'Hts 

thirds of the hands played are played at hearts, 
royals, or no-trumps, and this will still be so. 
For that reason, nullos cannot hurt the game; 
they will simply give the poor holder a " look-in.' ' 
If you should chance upon a game, some night, 
where nullos were played more frequently than 
any other suit, you would know that the cards 
were running very unevenly and that, failing 
nullos, there would have been an equal prepon- 
derance of no-trumpers for the opposite pair of 
players. We are still allowing five suits to the 
good cards and claiming but one for the poor 
ones. 

Don't be frightened by the novelty of nullos. 
Remember what a scarecrow the new count was 
to many players when it first appeared — how 
they predicted the ruination of the game if it 
were allowed entrance. 

Some natures are naturally experimental and 
eager to try out novelties; such will need no 
second urging to see what nullos offer. But 
to extreme conservatives, the new suit will be 
very distasteful, at first. It is the old question 
of progressives and standpatters ; you can range 
yourself on whichever side you like, but you 
cannot deny the existence of the issue. 

I find a number of persons — particularly 
Englishmen — who know the nullo-bid (or a 



Nxallos 33 

form of it) under the term of "mis&re, " or 
"misery." They have used it in Solo Whist, 
and have always wished it had an equivalent in 
Auction. Letters from abroad tell me that 
Germany is receiving the new suit enthusiasti- 
cally and looks upon it as a compliment to the 
national game of Skat; and that France and 
Switzerland are greatly interested. 

After you have used nullos, I think you will 
miss them greatly, if you are forced to play 
without them, just as you missed the new 
count (after you had grown accustomed to it), 
when you were forced to play with persons who 
did n't want to learn it. 

I have said that it was difficult to win a high 
nullo-bid. It is difficult, but not impossible. 
The other afternoon I bid, and made, "five 
nullos, " against expert defense, — and the feeling 
of exhilaration was greater than anything I 
have experienced for some time. The adver- 
saries could easily have outbid me in no-trumps, 
but they were sure they had me beaten. How- 
ever, take my advice and go slow, when you 
begin to experiment with nullos. 

We find that nullos are particularly useful 
as a forcing-bid and as a "flag-flying" bid. 
They are difficult to play, and a high nullo- 
bid goes against one more often than not, 



34 Auction HigH-LigHts 

because of Dummy. But since the advent of 
this new suit, I have seen the prettiest " flag- 
flying' ' I ever saw in my life. We have learned 
to do it so well, we no longer congratulate our- 
selves on " saving rubber," at a cost of six or 
seven hundred points. We know that such 
victories are worse than defeats. But we do 
cheerfully go down one or two hundred points 
to save rubber. We know that it is better to 
lose two hundred than two hundred and fifty; 
and that, in the former case, we have another 
chance at the rubber, while in the latter we have 
none. And nullos are beautiful flag-fliers ; they 
enable a pair of partners who have n't an ace 
or a face between them, to get into the game 
and to save rubber. 

You will hardly believe that, in these days of 
enlightened flag-flying, there are still players 
who " can't see it." Very recently I had a 
letter from a man who insisted that it was 
poor policy to lose a hundred {one hundred, 
mind you), in order to save rubber. Because, 
forsooth, "you lose the hundred and may lose 
the rubber too." And, equally, you may 
not. About chances there is no knowing. 
But why lose a sure two-hundred-and-fifty 
in preference to a sure hundred? That is 
really humorous! 



Nvillos 35 

THE PRACTICAL SIDE OF NULLOS 

The practical side of this new suit is nearly as 
difficult to explain as to play. Nothing but long 
habit will perfect you. Nevertheless, it is very 
possible to give you some helpful suggestions. 

The difficulty arises in the fact that the low 
cards are the vital ones, and that there is no way 
of placing them. In other suits the high cards 
are the important ones, and they are approxi- 
mately placed by the bidding and passing. 

I will designate as "low" cards, all deuces, 
treys, fours, and fives; as "intermediate cards," 
all sixes, sevens, eights, nines, and tens; and as 
"high cards, " all aces and faces. 

The dealer should open with "one nullo," 
if he has no better bid and if he holds low cards 
in every suit. It is also possible to bid a nullo 
with one unguarded suit (i.e., one suit that holds 
no low cards), provided that suit is in the hand 
that is not to be exposed, — and that it does not 
mean more than two or three rounds that must 
positively be taken. For instance, I should 
never hesitate to bid "a nullo" on this hand: 

Jfk 7642 
853 

4 10 53 2 



36 Auction HigH-LigfHts 

That heart-suit will almost certainly mean two 
tricks, — because there is no suit on which you 
will probably get a discard. But two tricks 
won't hurt you ; you can safely take six. 

I have recently heard the theory exploited 
that "the dealer should never open with a nullo 
for fear his partner has good cards. The third- 
hand should rather be the one to bid a nullo 
after his partner has opened with a spade." 

This is a gross error. It would be as sensible 
to say that "the dealer should never open with 
a no-trump, for fear his partner has poor 
cards." 

Let the dealer open with a nullo on every 
nullo-hand; let him differentiate sharply between 
an opening nullo-bid and an opening spade-bid; 
let him be warned by his partner's non-raise, or 
over-call ; and let the third-hand be extremely wary 
of bidding nullos if his partner has opened with 
a spade, — that bid shows certainly a hand that will 
hurt nullos. 

Before the advent of nullos, we used to bid 
a spade, on all poor hands. Henceforth, we 
shall make the bid on hands that are too high for 
nullos, and too poor for anything else. 

Hands that are full of intermediate cards — 
with few low cards to guard them — will be 
spade hands. Hands that are well-guarded by 



Nullos 37 

low cards, in at least three suits, will be nullo- 
hands. 

Aces and kings are no bar to nullo-bids, 
provided there are also low cards in the same 
suit. If you have three low clubs and the ace and 
king, your club-suit won't hurt nullos. You 
can "duck" for three rounds, and then it is 
probable that no one can lead them to you. 
There are but eight clubs held against you ; under 
average conditions, three rounds will exhaust 
them. 

As I have said, all poor hands will not be 
nullos, and neither will all nullos be poor hands. 
Take, for instance, the following combinations 
which show the difference between an opening 
spade-bid, and an opening nullo-bid: 

ty 10 9 7 

4k J9 

Q 8765 

£ Q986 

That is an extremely bad hand, but the dealer 
who held it would be forced to open with "a 
spade," and not "a nullo." There are two 
many high (or moderately high) sequences; 
too many eights, and nines, and tens; and too few 
deuces, treys, and fours. 



38 Auction Hig'H-Lig'Hts 

Here is a hand which, heretofore, we have 
been forced to open with "a heart" (and a mis- 
erable one it was), or u a spade," and possibly 
discourage partner from a fair " no-trumper " : 

ty AJ432 

* 62 

54 
4 9543 

To-day, I should open that hand with "a 
nullo, " and feel a good deal safer than I used to 
feel with "a heart." 

Here is another hand that would offer wonder- 
ful nullo possibilities: 

<3> 3 

Jf, AQ 10 98654 32 

2 

♦ 2 

By playing that hand at clubs, you might 
find the king, and even the jack, guarded against 
you. Your three singletons might all lose, and 
your total score on the hand would be eighteen. 
At nullos, you cannot fail to make a grand 
slam, if your partner does not get in your way; 
that would be seven tricks at eight apiece, forty 
for slam, — a total of ninety-six points, — and 



N\illos 39 

game-in. There would be but three clubs held 
against you, — all high; the adversaries would 
never be fools enough to lead those high clubs; 
and if they did, you could "duck" the three 
leads. They could not make you take a trick 
in anything. 

I should open that hand with "a nullo, ,, and 
if my partner raised me fust once, I should bid 
"nullos" forever. If he called me off, I should 
switch to " clubs.' ' 

<$ 63 
A KQ42 
Q 107 5 43 

You may bid a nullo on that hand if it is 
not to be exposed, — that is, if you are the original 
nullo-bidder. The diamonds are safe because 
they are well-guarded by low cards, and because 
no one will know of them. You will get a 
discard for one of your high clubs on the second 
spade-round, and very possibly a discard for the 
other high club on the third heart-round. 

I should never dream of raising my partner's 
nullo-bid on that hand, because the diamonds 
and clubs would then be on the board ; they could 
probably be made to take four tricks. In fact, 



40 Auction HigH-LigfHts 

if I held that hand when my partner opened 
with a nullo and second-hand passed, I should 
certainly over- call with two diamonds. The 
trump-length, the spade-singleton, and the two 
high clubs, would all help; and it is more neces- 
sary to warn your partner from nullos than from 
any other suit; because nullo fiascos are more 
deadly than any other! 

ty J94 

* QJ84 

Q9 2 

4 10 9 4 

Although there are low cards in every suit, that 
hand demands a spade-bid and not a nullo. By 
bidding " a spade " the dealer denies both a nullo- 
assist and a possible call-off. For that reason, I 
make this statment, which will seem astounding 
to the novice: it is more dangerous for third-hand 
to bid nullos over his partner's opening spade than 
over any other opening-bid his partner may make! 

You see, a spade- bid almost certainly an- 
nounces a hodge-podge hand that consists of a 
mess of intermediate cards, — a deadly sort of 
Dummy for the nullo-player. It absolutely 
denies nullo-possibilities. Whereas, a perfectly 
legitimate heart-make or royal-make may be a 



Nxillos 41 

beautiful nulloassist. The same, of course, is 
true of diamonds and clubs. Suppose the dealer 
opens with " a, heart " on this: 

<? AKQ6543 
4» 642 
3 

4 54 

That is certainly a heart-make, — but it is also 
a nullo-assist. Now, if third-hand holds a 
perfect nullo-hand, he can bid two nullos: if 
the heart-hand will assist nullos, he can let the 
bid go; if not, — i.e., if his hand is a splendid 
heart-hand, or a heart-hand whose side-suit 
would hurt nullos, — he can bid two hearts with 
no increase of contract. Then the nullo-hand 
should give up, at once; his story is told, and 
the telling did not suit his partner; let him 
never repeat it ! 

Even when the dealer opens with a no-trump, 
third-hand is free to bid two nullos. If the no- 
trump hand is good, its holder will go back to 
his suit. And in these days of light no- 
trumpers, two nullos makes an invaluable warn- 
ing over-call for a player who cannot assist 
no-trumps, and who has no five-card or six- 
card suit to show. Suppose the dealer says "a 
no-trump' ' on this hand: 



42 Auction HigH-LigHts 

9 KJ54 
4* A32 

A543 

4 72 

and suppose his partner holds these cards : 

£? 10 7 63 
4$ J54 
J762 
4 53 

He has no five-card or six-card suit, with 
which to make a warning suit-bid. Yet he has 
a perfectly legitimate warning-bid in two nullos. 
Let him make it; and, if the dealer's hand 
would kill nullos, or is a really strong no- 
trumper, let him return to his suit. 

Therefore, I repeat : it is more dangerous for 
third-hand to bid nullos when his partner has 
opened with "a spade" than when he has opened 
with any other bid. The dealer who opens with a 
legitimate bid has a chance to over-call his 
partner's nullo. The dealer who opens with 
a spade has no such chance. 

A long suit holding several low cards, is gen- 
erally an asset in the closed hand. It is often 
dangerous when exposed on the table. 

A blank suit is an asset in either hand. Just 



Nvillos 43 

as a blank suit is a disadvantage in no-trumps, 
it is a tremendous advantage in nullos. 

Intermediate sequences are the most deadly 
nullo-holding for either the open hand or the 
closed one. They are infinitely worse than 
long suits that run to the ace, or king, or both. 

As in every other suit, the original declarer 
of nullos should consider his partner's hand as 
well as his own. If you bid royals, or hearts, 
and your partner calls you off, or declines to 
raise you, — you regard it as a danger-signal. 
And so it is ! Remember that in nullos these dan- 
ger-signals are more worthy of regard than in any 
other suit! 

Multiply all our former dangers by ten and 
apply them to nullos, and you will be fairly 
safe. Very often your partner has a spade-hand 
(when you are dealer), — a hand that would kill 
nullos, but is incapable of any bid; let his non- 
raise be your danger-signal, — and give him a 
chance to show that non-raise. Don't keep 
going up and up, on your own poor hand, without 
a thought of him. Often his hand would not 
seriously hurt one nullo, but would hurt higher 
nullo-bids. Again, give him the chance to raise 
you, or to pass, and be guided by his choice! 

Suppose you open with "a nullo" and second- 
hand says " a royal" ; then, if your partner passes 



44 Auction HigH-LigHts 

instead of raising, regard it as a danger-signal. 
But suppose you open with a nullo and second- 
hand passes; your partner's hand may hold a 
dangerous nullo-combination and a sound bid — 
in this case, he will over-call (heed the warn- 
ing). Or it may hold a combination that will 
not hurt one nullo, and he will pass (give him 
another chance before you go too high). Or 
it may be a hand that will hurt-^ one nullo 
yet will not permit a bid, — so he passes. Then, 
suppose it is fourth-hand, instead of second, that 
bids "the royal. " Put it up to your partner 
whether, or not, you shall play two nullos; even 
though your own hand warrants the bid, wait 
to hear from him. Pass, — let second-hand pass, 
— and see whether your partner passes, or raises. 
If he passes, be sure that you are well out of it ; 
his hand on the board might have killed you; 
if he raises, go on with your bid, as high as you 
think your hand permits. 

In order to raise a nullo-bid, third-hand 
should hold low cards in every suit ; his partner 
holds them in every suit but one; now, if he 
allows himself a suit with no low cards to guard 
it, it is a very lucky chance if his high suit and 
his partner's high suit are one and the same. If 
they are not, there are two suits (between the two 
hands) that must take tricks, and there is also 



Nullos 45 

the chance of the original nullo-bidder being 
so buoyed up by his partner's raise that he will 
bid his hand very high. Therefore, let third- 
hand raise only when all suits hold some low 
cards; and let him distinctly remember that his 
hand is to be exposed. Let him sound all 
danger-signals that are necessary and possible — 
either by over-calls, or by passing. 

It is possible in nullos, as in all suits, for the 
two sides to bid against each other. The dealer 
may open with a nullo, and one or the other of 
the adversaries may answer with two nullos; 
but this adversary should remember that the 
low cards are probably divided between him and 
the original bidder, and that his own partner 
has probably a handful of high, or intermediate 
cards. 

As in all suits, you want the strong hand on 
your right — so that you can play after it. Then 
you can throw cards that are immediately under 
those with which the strong hand has just been 
forced to take. If there is a long and strong 
heart-suit to your right, and if you hold four 
hearts to the jack (the other three being low 
cards), the chances are that your jack will never 
take. If the long and strong heart-suit is on your 
left, your jack is nearly sure to take, first or last; 
because you play before the good heart-hand. 



46 Auction HigH-LigHts 

If your jack is on the trick, the long hand will 
4 'duck" and give it to you; if your jack is not 
on, the long hand will take high, and keep 
leading low to your jack, till he forces it to take. 

Nullos differ from the other suits in this way : 
there is no set law as to lead. It is a matter 
of chance more often than not; and the choice 
of lead will often make, or wreck, a hand. Yet 
it would often be impossible to say that the 
one lead was right and the other wrong. After 
the original lead, and the exposure of Dummy, 
the planning of the hand becomes more possible. 

The best blind-lead, against a nullo-declara- 
tion, is a low, or an intermediate card; and, 
unless this lead be a singleton, the leader should 
take care to make a lead that still leaves him 
with a low card, or low cards, in the same suit. 
A singleton lead is good as it will give you 
future discards on the suit. An ace-lead, or 
king-lead, is extremely bad, as it gives the De- 
clarant a chance to "duck" and yet get rid of 
a high card that might embarrass him later. 
Lead from two or more low cards, or lead the 
intermediate card from a suit that holds one 
low, and one intermediate card. 

An intermediate card from a long suit makes a 
good lead; if the suit is long in your hand, your 
partner may get a valuable discard on the second 



Nullos 47 

or third round. Also, the Declarant and the 
Dummy may not be well-guarded with low 
cards, and will have to take the first round, or a 
later round. If you lead from this combination : 

£? A J 10 8 2 

the ten is an excellent lead, except that it may 
give the Declarant a chance to take twice on the 
same trick; he may play the queen from one 
hand and the king from the other; and it will not 
give your partner a chance to throw the jack or 
ten, because you hold them both yourself. Yet, 
the Declarant could also twice- take the deuce 
(should you lead it), and could throw the suit 
back to you and force you to take all subsequent 
rounds, — because you had unguarded yourself; 
whereas, by leading the ten, you get rid of one 
high card, and retain a low one for later rounds. 
If your ten takes, lead the eight ; that leaves you 
still guarded, and may force the dealer to take 
with a nine; if he ducks twice, lead your deuce, 
(unless you have reason to think he will discard). 
Then, you see, you have him, and he cannot prob- 
ably throw the suit back to your ace and jack. 

When the trick comes up to fourth-hand, if it 
is already his partner's, he should over-take it, 
(unless the lead would embarrass him); always 



48 Auction Hig'H-Lig'Hts 

get rid of as many high cards as possible on the 
same trick. This rule holds for both Declarant 
and adversaries. 

Do you remember how, when we first began 
to play, every one's idea of playing a no-trump 
hand was to take immediately every trick in 
sight! We all skimmed off our cream in the 
shape of aces and kings and feared to lose even 
one round or to let the other man in. Gradu- 
ally we learned that it was policy often to hold 
back, to lose several tricks, in order to make 
more, later. So in nullos it is often policy to 
take several tricks in order to lose more, later. 

The Declarant should keep all of Dummy's 
suits guarded with low cards, as long as possible. 
He should keep counting the low cards. Suppose 
the first lead is the deuce of clubs; Dummy goes 
down with these clubs : 

£ J 10 7 6 5 

and in his own hand, the Declarant holds these 
clubs : 

4k 9843 

He should play Dummy's jack because it is cer- 
tain that third-hand (if he holds any clubs at 
all) must beat the jack; all lower cards lie with 
the Declarant. And if third-hand holds no 



Nullos 49 

clubs, the Declarant can throw the suit back and 
force the leader to take three subsequent club- 
rounds. 

The lead of an ace, by the way, is good 
from the Declarant, when he can throw an- 
other high card onto it, and when the ace must 
take eventually. Suppose he holds the ace of 
hearts in one hand and the queen in the other. 
Let him lead his ace (if he is in the ace-hand) , 
and throw his queen, — if he does not hold the 
jack, or ten, in either hand! Even though the 
adversaries throw their king onto the ace, they 
will have to take the second round of the suit. 
If the Declarant can get rid of two high cards, 
and if his next cards are all low, he will be 
advantaged by the ace-lead. 

The moment the first lead is out, and Dummy 
goes down on the board, the adversaries should 
notice all its weak spots (remembering that 
strong spots are "weak spots"), and should 
continue to hammer them. Suppose Dummy 
holds three diamonds — the jack, the trey, and 
the deuce ; that jack of diamonds should be made 
to take a trick. You may hold the ten, the eight, 
and the six. Don't be deterred from leading the 
suit by the fact that Dummy can duck twice. 
The third round can be forced on him, if he 
ducks the first two. This is particularly for- 



50 Auction HigH-LigHts 

tunate if the adversary who holds the three 
last-named diamonds (the ten, the eight, and 
the six) plays before Dummy. Then the second 
adversary can suit his play to Dummy's play; 
if Dummy puts up the jack on the first round, 
the second adversary can duck. If Dummy 
ducks the first round, the second adversary can 
take with an unnecessarily high card (such as the 
ace, or king), and lead the suit again. Neither 
adversary should lead the ace, the king, or the 
queen, — as that would permit Dummy to throw the 
jack. 

If Dummy shows dangerous strength, the 
adversaries should first seek to take out all of 
Dummy's low cards and then throw him in with 
his high ones. If Dummy holds three low hearts 
and two low diamonds, and strength in the black 
suits, the adversaries should lead two high 
diamonds, and three high hearts, and then 
throw Dummy in with a black card. This 
scheme the declarant should seek to frustrate. 
He should take tricks in his own hand, if possible, 
and change the lead, rather than allow Dummy 
to be shorn of all his low cards. 

Suppose you are playing a nullo-hand: five 
rounds have been played, and you have just 
taken the sixth round in Dummy; Dummy's 
remaining cards are these: 



Nullos 51 

V — 

4* J7 

J64 
^ A2 

Clubs and diamonds are exhausted in the 
adversaries* hands ; you can therefore not lead a 
club or a diamond. You must lead your ace of 
spades and then your deuce; you must do this, 
even if it sets you in your bid. You will be 
worse set if you don't! By leading the deuce, 
the adversaries will take, and will throw you 
another spade, — forcing you to take every other 
trick! By leading the ace and then the deuce, 
you make it impossible for them to throw you in! 

The discard calls for the greatest possible care. 
Let us imagine that you are playing nullos on 
this hand: 

^7 A6532 
j* 10 9 3 
8643 

The adversary's first lead is a spade, which 
you duck, in both hands. If he leads another 
spade, you get a discard. Don't discard that 
ace of hearts, because it is the highest card in 
your hand. It is not at all dangerous j because 
you can duck four rounds of hearts, and it is 



52 



Auction HigH-LigHts 



highly improbable that the adversaries can lead 
a fifth round. If they can, it won't hurt you to 
take it, and get a discard in Dummy. Let your 
discard on the second spade be your ten of 
clubs; those intermediate clubs are much more 
harmful to you than is your ace of hearts. 

I am going to give here some examples of 
the play and bidding of nullo-hands. Others 
will be found among the Test-Hands in another 
chapter. 

Here is a wonderful illustration of a nullo- 
hand ; it actually occurred : 





V 


KJ 






* 


AKJ754 







QJ 






♦ 


AJ7 




ty 10 9 632 




Y 


^ A54 


* 863 


A 


B 


* 92 


<a> K95 






<£> A 10 8 2 


* 84 




Z 


4 10 65 2 




tf 


Q 87 






* 


Q10 









7643 






* 


KQ93 




was the first de< 


lie 


)f a new i 


•ubber. 



Nullos 53 

Z must open with "one spade." He cannot 
say "a nullo," because his spades, hearts, and 
clubs are all too dangerous. They are all 
fairly high cards, there are too many deuces, 
treys, fours, fives, etc., held against him. This 
differentiation between "a spade" and "a 
nullo" is very interesting. You are far safer 
at nullos holding these hearts: 
ty A J543 2 

than holding these : 

ty J 10 9 7 

A has a perfect nullo-bid, but he should pass 
the spade; his partner might be strong. 

It would depend on Y's temperament whether 
he said "a club," or "a no-trump." His 
partner's hand is bad; his suits (barring clubs) 
are short and in execrable combinations; they 
should be led to, and, if his partner's hand holds 
no reentry, Y will have to lead away constantly 
from his own hand. His clubs are not estab- 
lished, the queen may easily be guarded against 
him. I should hate the no-trump, and I should 
bid the club. 

B should bid "one nullo" over "a club," and 
"two nullos" over "a no-trump." His only 
danger is in his diamonds; ace, ten, eight 
may mean three tricks in diamonds. However, 



54 -Auction HigH-LigHts 

we will suppose that he says "a nullo." This 
sounds good to A. 

Z has a hand to help either no-trumps or 
clubs. As his partner has announced a club- 
suit (which he himself can fill), as he stops 
hearts once and spades twice (provided the leads 
come right), I should think he would say "one 
no-trump" with the score at love. This sounds 
good to Y. 

Now the bidding runs between no-trumps and 
nullos. As A-B, I should not hesitate to bid 
the latter up to four or five; that would make 
32, or 40, for Z-Y to beat. 

Z-Y can make but two-odd at no-trumps. 
A leads his fourth-best heart; B takes with the 
ace and changes the suit, returning his fourth- 
best diamond. A takes and returns his nine. 
They make five tricks before Z gets in. 

Z-Y can bid clubs successfully up to four. 
If B leads his heart-ace and gets no " encourage- 
ment card" from A, he will abandon the suit 
and lead his diamond ace. A will play encourage- 
ment, B will lead again, and they will take 
three tricks. 

Thus, "four clubs," or "two no-trumps" 
would be the only successful bids Z-Y could 
make, and A-B could outbid either with nullos. 

Of course, nullos will lie with you on some 



Nullos 



55 



deals, and against you on others. But the point 
is that they discount luck (a thing we have 
never before achieved) , and let every one into the 
game. There are fewer ' ' walk-overs ' ' for any one. 
Here is another remarkable hand that has 
aroused considerable discussion. It is the best 
possible lesson on nullo-play although it would 
never be played at nullos. The correspondent 
who sent it to me announced that "B could 
take three-odd in nullos, in spite of a strong 
Dummy." As a matter of fact, B could make 
but one nullo against expert defense ; and unless 
he played remarkably well, he could n't make 
that. Here is the hand: 





9 


J3 




♦ 


543 







A K Q 10 5 




♦ 


QJ 8 


ty K 




Y 


4» A K J 10 9 
62 


A 


B 


4k AK6 43 




Z 




tf 


AQ9872 




* 


Q 6 







J83 




* 


95 



y 10 6 54 
4t 872 
974 
i 10 7 2 



56 Auction HigH-Lights 

Z opens with " a heart " ; A can say " a royal, ' f 
or "two clubs"; I should choose the one-bid, 
keeping the high suit for trumps and the strong 
minor-suit for side-suit (provided it was a clean 
score) . Forty-eight honors are nothing wonder- 
ful. Either bid would be perfectly correct. 

Let us suppose that A says "a royal"; Y can 
say "two hearts," or "two diamonds"; he 
would probably choose the latter. And B 
might answer with "two nullos. " 

B's bid would serve as a forcer, only; his 
adversaries would probably not let him play 
"two nullos" and his partner should certainly 
never permit it ; but even as a forcer it helps the 
bidding, keeps B in the ring, and warns his 
partner to expect nothing from him. And, as 
an example, we will suppose that B is playing 
the hand at nullos, and that Z leads the five of 
spades. 

B plays the six of spades from Dummy (he 
sees the two, three, and four in his own hands 
and knows Y must take) ; B cannot afford to put 
up the ace or king, as it would give Y a chance 
to throw an honor ; he plays the six and Y takes 
with the queen, or jack, or eight. 

Now a novice, in Y's place, would lead the 
three of hearts, in order to make Dummy take 
with his lone king. That would make B's 



Nvillos 57 

victory complete. He would take the heart, 
perforce, and then lead his three high clubs, so as to 
exhaust the adversaries' clubs and prevent them 
from throwing him in. Then he would lead a 
little diamond and never take another trick. 
He could "duck" diamonds, spades, and hearts, 
and no one could lead him a club. 

When Y takes the first spade-round, he should 
play the ace and king of diamonds to exhaust 
Dummy's low cards. Then, if he leads his jack 
and eight of spades and if B lets him take both 
rounds, he can throw Dummy in with a heart, 
and Dummy will take three rounds of clubs, one 
of hearts, and two of spades, unavoidably. But 
if B takes the jack of spades with Dummy's 
ace, leads three rounds of clubs (to exhaust the 
adversaries' clubs and cut out a possible club- 
lead from them) and then the king of hearts, he 
will take but the book. Z will throw his ace of 
hearts on the third club-round and his queen onto 
the king; Y will throw his jack onto the king and 
B his ten, but when A leads a small spade and 
Y takes with the eight he can lead his trey of 
hearts and force one heart-round on B. How- 
ever, B can throw it back again to Z on the next 
round. 

Now suppose, after Y takes the first round of 
spades, he leads his jack and B comes in (cor- 



58 Auction High-Lights 

rectly) with Dummy's ace, he should lead three 
rounds of clubs and then his king of hearts. 
But after two club-rounds he will know by actual 
count that one of his adversaries is exhausted and 
will get a discard on the third round. That 
discard may be an ace. If B allows this fact to 
deter him from the third club-lead he is lost. 
Z can take the king of hearts with the ace, lead a 
diamond which Y will take, and will follow with 
another high diamond, and the eight of spades. 
That makes five tricks (two spades, one heart, 
and two diamonds). Y will still have a little 
club to throw A in, and A takes every other 
trick. There is one way, and one only, by 
which B can keep a contract of "one nullo" 
against the best defense. 

Are nullos difficult? Are they interesting? 
And do they presuppose the greatest skill 
imaginable? 

Here are a few more examples of nullo-hands, 
—all taken from actual experience: 

The score is 18 to 6, rubber-game. 



Nvillos 



59 





tf 


K J96 






* 


A754 









A 10 5 4 3 






4 







^Qio 




Y 


ty A84 


4* K98 


A 


B 


+ J 10 


KQ2 






0> J 9876 


4 J 10 9 7 6 




Z 


4 AQ8 




tf 


7532 






* 


Q632 
















♦ 


K5432 





Neither Z nor Y has a strong bid, and in com- 
bination their hands are awful. Each lacks the 
other's suit. Y's hearts are bad for nullos; but 
if he can get a discard or two, on spade-rounds, 
he can afford to bid nullos. Also, a round or 
two in hearts won't hurt him ; his other suits are 
full of low cards. 

Did you ever sit at an Auction table all 
evening without playing a hand and without 
saying a word but "by"? I have; and I fancy 
many others have. That cannot happen with 
the introduction of nullos! Of course r the ad- 
versaries may be " playing for blood," and may 
be delighted to get all the cards, — there are such 



6o 



Auction HigH-LigHts 



players! But wait till their turn comes to sit still, 
and see if they don't look for nullos ! With the 
adoption of the new suit, there will be no more 
" dead " games ; every player will have his chance. 
Here is another hand ; it is the first deal on a 
new rubber: 

ty 9875 4 

* J 

Q5 

4 Q 10 652 



9 AQ 
4k A 10 93 
<> K10 9 8 
4* KJ8 




$ K10 6 

4k K852 

J72 

4 A97 



<? J32 
* Q7 64 
A643 

Would it be more interesting to let A-B walk 
off with their "no-trumper, " without a struggle, 
— or to bid it up a bit, between " nullos ' ' and 
''no-trumps, " till it grew exciting and worth 
while? Do you enjoy games where every con- 
tract goes at one-odd, and where the Declarant 
walks off without opposition? There is nothing 
exciting or stimulating about Auction of that 
kind. 



Nvillos 



6l 



Here are a few more "examples from real life. 
Try them with nullos, and without : 
9 K92 
«fr J987 
O 97 
4 J952 



£? 87653 




Y 


S> 


4 


4* 10 3 


A 


B 


* 


AK65 


532 









64 


4 10 6 3 


i 


Z 


* 


AKQ874 




9 


AQ J 10 






* 


Q42 











AKQ J 


10 8 






♦ 










9 


73 








* 


KQ62 











AJ54 








* 


875 


V 




^? 10 9 65 




Y 


AKJ8 


4» 10 8 3 


A 


B 


* 


J9 


73 









K Q 10 9 8 


4 A K 10 3 




Z 


* 


J9 




9 


Q42 






* 


A754 











62 








♦ 


Q 642 







62 



Auction HigH-LigHts 





V 


76 






* 


Q53 









A7642 






* 


AK5 




ty 10 5 3 




Y 


^ KQ9 


4k AK 


A 


B 


£ J986 


QJ95 






10 8 3 


4 Q10 8 4 




Z 


4k J96 




tf 


A J842 






* 


10 7 4 2 ' 









K 






* 


732 





See what splendid forcing can be done on this 
last hand. 

Remember, "nullos" ask only that one suit 
in six may be given to poor holders ; they make 
their plea in the name of fair play; and they 
leave the three important suits, — the three that 
are generally played, — still absolutely supreme. 

Take these suggestions as a basis, and enlarge 
on them by practical experience. Nothing but 
that will teach you to play nullos. As I have 
said, you are almost certainly going to get your 
fingers burned when you first begin to handle 
them. You will probably over-bid your hands 
and then blame your partner for not calling you 



Nullos 63 

off, — when he holds a combination of intermedi- 
ate cards which kills your b'd, but which would 
just as urely kill any bid he attempted. Later, 
you will grow wiser; you will listen to over-calls; 
you will bs warned by non-raises; you will give 
your partner a chance to pass before you bid 
nullos to three and four. And when, in the end, 
you have become expert in handling this most 
difficult of all suits, you will admit that it is the 
subtlest, the most fascinating, and the fairest 
addition that the game has received since we 
opened our arms to the new count. At that, we 
looked askance when it was first suggested to us; 
now there is nothing that could induce us to give 
it up. And unless my predictions are very much 
at fault, we shall repeat this experience in the 
new suit of nullos. 

I append extracts from a few of the many 
letters I have received on the subject: 

"We are fascinated by the possibilities of 
1 nullos/ As you say, they seem to give the game 
new life. ^ 

II Your recent references to the nullo-bid have 
been of great interest to me. Having played a 
great deal of Solo Whist, I have always felt a 
great craving for a 'misere' bid in Auction.' ' 

" I have tried * nullos/ and I like the game. I be- 
lieve this recent addition should be permanent. " 



64 Auction HigH-LigHts 

"Your arguments for adopting nullos have 
interested me very much. I am an old Skat 
player, and thought it the best game in the 
world till Auction was brought up to its present 
standard; but even at that it always lacked 
something — the defensive side of the game, I 
should call it. There are many people who 
practically always hold poor hands, and their 
only defense, up to now, has been to reduce their 
losses by not v bidding and by letting the other 
side win. 

"This, at best, is unsatisfactory, and will dis- 
hearten the best player. Even several years ago 
attempts were made to equalize the game. I 
remember how surprised I was, when playing in 
Trinidad, on holding ioo aces and declaring no- 
trump, to have one of my opponents throw down 
his hand and claim a new deal. He had not a 
face-card in his hand, and the club at which we 
played had made that ruling to equalize luck. 
Nullos seem the logical way to give the poor 
holder an even chance. . . . My experience has 
been that it takes more skill to play nullos than 
any other suit." 



CHAPTER III 

TEAM-WORK 

There is no part of Auction that has made 
greater strides in the past year than team-work. 
The combining of the two hands, by means of 
legitimate bidding and over-calling, has reached 
the height of perfection. 

In tennis it is a well-known fact that the man 
who holds the championship for singles is rarely 
a wonderful player in doubles. Occasionally, 
a man appears whose gifts are equally great in 
both lines, and then he is a star of the first 
magnitude. But, as a rule, the man whose work 
in singles is perfection, is the one whose team-work 
leaves something to be desired. 

And so in Auction! I have seen scores of 
persons whose art was perfection when it was a 
question of playing their own hands combined 
with Dummy's; their accuracy was flawless; 
they never dropped a trick. And their team- 
work in playing was excellent, even when the 
s 65 



66 .Auction High-LigHts 

adversaries had captured the bid ; but their team- 
work in bidding was atrocious! 

While I admire the faultless player intensely, 
I should choose the faultless bidder for my 
partner. Give me the man who never offers me 
false information; who never declares the king 
when his highest card is the jack; who never 
makes a double that will give the adversaries 
a chance for a safe shift; who knows how to stop 
bidding his own suit and leave me my better 
one; who can practice self-effacement when the 
cards demand it; who will give me a warning 
over-call when my bid strikes a bad combination 
in his hand; who will give me the opportunity to 
tell him that his bid is unwelcome to me; and 
above all, who thrusts no undesirable responsi- 
bilities upon me, in the shape of conventional bids 
to which I am forced to respond, whether I like it or 
not! 

I do not consider conventional calls good team- 
work. While they make an exact announce- 
ment of the bidder's cards, they make it in a 
bid that is not playable. Sometimes they suit 
the partner's hand, end sometimes not. When 
they do not, they are execrable team-work. 
When they do, they are unnecessary team-work. 
Legitimate information, given by bids, with 
which the bidder is willing and able to be left, 



Team-WorK 67 

show much more consideration to his partner 
and, at the same time, tell all that a player should 
be permitted to tell. 

There are no longer any "rescue" bids! I 
wish all players could grasp this fact. "I must 
take my partner out of a ' spade V ' and "I 
must take my partner out of a double, " are two 
sentiments that are responsible for thousands 
of Auction fiascos. 

Granting that your partner knows how to play, 
he will not bid "a spade' ' unless he is forced to. 
If he makes that bid, it means that he has a very 
poor hand and is trying to limit his losses. It 
means that he can probably give you very little 
help if you try to " relieve the situation " by mak- 
ing a bid in which your losses are not limited. 
If your partner bids a spade and the second hand 
passes, you should not bid unless you have good 
material for your bid I This is especially true of 
a no-trump bid. A light suit-bid will sometimes 
win, under the circumstances, because of ruffs 
w or cross-ruffs. But the light no-trumpers with 
which it is legitimate, and even desirable, to 
open, are not advisable from third-hand when 
his partner has opened with a spade. As dealer, 
you hope that your partner has help ; as third- 
hand, you know he has none. 

A light bid from third-hand will sometimes 



68 Auction HigH-LigHts 

start up the bidding, and that is better than 
being "left in with a spade. " But if the adver- 
saries refuse to be started up, third-hand has a 
sorry job in combining his own light hand with 
his partner's poor one. He is apt to wish he had 
accepted the alternative of losing one hundred. 

If & light bid is to be made under these conditions, 
a suit-bid is preferable to a no-trumper. 

Neither is it wise to attempt to " rescue* * your 
partner from a double. Good players do not 
double one suit unless they can double all suits. 
This means that you will be doubled, in your 
turn, and that you have made your bid because 
you were frightened, while your partner made his 
because he wanted to and because he considered 
his hand was worth it. His hand is almost 
certainly stronger than yours on which you are 
attempting to " rescue' ' him. It is better that 
he should play the strong hand than that you 
should play the weak one. He may even like 
the double! 

I have a favorite way of illustrating this to my 
pupils. Suppose you were out in a swift current 
in a nice, tight, safe little boat; some onlookers 
on the bank, seeing the danger of the current, 
would say: "I bet that man cannot make it; I 
bet he will drown.' ' Then your friend, over- 
hearing the remark, becomes panic-stricken; 



Team- Work 69 

seizing an old water-logged plank, he jumps on it 
and pushes it out into the stream. And he 
cries to you: "Oh, they say you will drown in 
that boat; come onto my plank with me!" 
The current is the same, the danger is the same; 
where would you rather face them, on the plank 
or in the boat? 

There are still some players who cling to the 
old-fashioned double of one-bids to show that 
they stop the suit. They divide doubles into 
"informatory " doubles and " business* ' doubles. 
This method belongs distinctly, I think, to a 
past day. All doubles, now, should be business 
doubles; they should never be made on a "one- 
bid/' and they should never give the adversary 
a loophole for escape. 

By "rescue" bids then, I mean forced bids 
to take a partner out of "a spade, " and out of a 
double. And I repeat : There are no longer any 
rescue bids! 

If your partner is the one who makes a double, 
let him alone! Don't change his double to a bid, 
unless that bid will put you rubber. His double 
is worth a hundred a trick; your bid cannot 
possibly be so valuable ; his tricks begin to count 
after you have taken three, or four, or five, — 
yours not till after you have laid up your book 
of six tricks. If he doubles the adversary's 



70 Auction HigH-LigHts 

hearts, for instance, don't get frightened because 
you, yourself, hold no hearts. The very fact 
that you have none, shows that they are all banked 
in your partner's hand! 

One of the foundations of good team-work 
is the following rule : 

If your partner makes a bid in any of the three 
major-suits (hearts, royals, or no-trumps), never 
interfere with him, unless as a warning that your 
hand will be an absolutely hopeless one in his suit, 
or unless you hold four or five honors in a high 
suit. 

If your partner bids hearts, never change it 
to anything, unless you are " chicane' ' in hearts (or 
have only one little spot) , or unless you have four 
or five honors in royals, or a hundred aces 
for no-trump. If you have a singleton heart 
that is the ace, the king, or the queen, let his 
suit alone. Your honor will help him clear it; 
it may even take a trick. If you have two little 
hearts, let his suit alone ; your two trumps added 
to the five which he must probably hold will give 
him the bigger half of all the trumps in the pack. 
Don't change to "two clubs" on a wonderful 
club-suit; use that as a side-suit for his hearts. 
Would n't you rather have trumps worth eight 
and side-suit worth six, than trumps worth six 
and side-suit worth eight? 



Team-WorK 71 

Again, don't change his hearts to no-trumps 
unless you have a hundred aces. If you have 
not, let him play his hearts, and give him your 
no-trump hand in support. It takes four of his 
suit, and three of yours, to go game. Your no 
trump hand should certainly supply that extra 
trick. Your hand helps his heart hand, by sup- 
plying good side-suit; his hand may not work well 
with your no-trump. It is not necessarily a long 
established suit on which he bids "a heart." 

Still again, don't change his hearts to royals, un- 
less you hold seventy- two honors, or eighty hon- 
ors, or cannot help at all, to play hearts. True, 
royals are higher than hearts ; but they are no bet- 
ter for game. It takes four of either to go game ; 
give him, then, your spades as side support. 

If your partner bids "a heart," second-hand 
passes, and you hold this : 

(^ 942 

£ AKQ1086 

<> Q43 

* 8 
pass also, on a clean score. It takes five clubs 
and only four hearts to go game. You have 
three trumps, a side-singleton, and a wonderful 
side-suit. Don't be dazzled by those club-honors, 
unless you have enough on the score to go game 



72 Auction Hig'H-LigHts 

in clubs with two or three odd. In that case, 
you might as well bid them and get your honors. 
But on a clean score, play " hearts' ' rather than 
clubs. Your partner's hearts might make a 
wretched side-suit; they might be long and 
scattered; one adversary might stop them and 
the other might ruff them. Your clubs cannot 
fail to be a wonderful side-suit after trumps are 
gone; they would also make forcers, if the 
adversary held the long trump. 

Pass your partner's " heart "-bid, on the 
following hands : 

9 85 

* Q9 

8653 

4 AKQ62 

(unless your score is just twelve; in that case, 
over-call with "a royal"; eighteen would put 
you game and sixteen would not). 






* 


K842 





AK72 


* 


9853 


9 


J73 


+ 


AK85 





KQS4 


♦ 


A 32 



Team-WorK 73 

Over-call on the following hands : 





<? 975 

♦ K 10 

4 A KQ10 8 2 




("A royal" 

honors.) 


is your proper bid, 

£ AKQ9 853 
Q74 
4fc 986 


because of the 


(Over-call with "two clubs, " as a warning.) 




9 9 

4k AK542 
KQ86 
4 KJ4 





(Over-call with " two clubs, " or " a no-trump. " 
The latter bid is signal that you cannot help 
hearts, but have every other suit well stopped. If 
your partner goes back to "two hearts," let 
him alone. Don't warn twice! It might be a 
disastrous no-trumper. If your partner's suit 
did n't clear in one round and if he held no side 
reentry, you could not use his hearts. If the 



74 Auction HigH-LigHts 

ace- queen of spades and the ace of diamonds lay 
on the wrong side of you, you would have but 
three tricks in your hand.) 

This is the acme of good team-work. Formerly, 
if your partner opened with "a heart/' and 
second-hand passed, you would say " two clubs, " 
on this hand: 

9 K95 

4* AKQ9876 2 

A 

Some people bid that way yet, but it is poor 
team-work. Just look what your partner can 
do with his own hearts and your hand for 
support! 

Now take every rule that I have just given you 
for hearts, and apply it to royals. Don't over 
call a heart-bid or a royal-bid except for the 
reasons just specified. And that brings us to 
no-trumps. 

If your partner bids "a no-trump," the next 
hand passes, and you have an absolutely blank 
hand, should you, or should you not, change your 
partner's no-trump to two in a suit? In other 
words, should you warn him of your in ability 
to help in no-trump? 



Team-WorK 75 

Most decidedly you should warn him if you 
are able. But to do so on insufficient material 
would be to increase your danger instead of to 
lessen it. 

When your partner bids no-trump, his suit 
is aces and kings. If you have no aces and kings, 
you are blank in his suit. How shall you tell 
him so? 

Tell him so by bidding two on any six-card 
suit, or any five-card suit that runs to a ten 
spot (or any card higher than a ten spot) ; but 
on no four-card suit, and on no five-card suit 
that is headed by a card that is lower than a ten. 

To change a no-trump to two in any suit 
(with no bid from the intervening adversary) > 
is a distinct backward bid; a backward bid is 
always a signal of weakness. Therefore, if your 
partner says " a no-trump, " the next hand passes, 
and you say "two clubs, " you are not telling 
your partner that you hold wonderful clubs ; you 
are telling him that your hand is a wretched one, 
that it is void of aces and kings; but that you 
have six little clubs, or five little clubs headed by 
the ten spot or higher, or, possibly, a good suit 
of clubs, but nothing else. 

After this warning-bid, if he chooses to go back 
to his no-trumps, knowing that he must take 
care of them alone, and that there is probably not 



76 Auction HigH-LigHts 

a single taking card in your hand, then let him 
alone. You have warned him once and you have 
done your duty; there is no necessity for any 
further responsibility on your part. 

To a novice, it would seem absurd to bid 
two clubs on six little clubs to a seven-spot — 
especially when the bid was not a forced one. 
But a shaky hand is always safer as a declared 
trump than as a no-trump. Nothing is so hope- 
less as a no-trump that goes wrong; there is 
no possible way to save it, no way to "get in. " 

In a trump make, you can ruff suits — get a 
cross-ruff — use little trumps separately in the 
two hands ; if your partner has a no-trump hand 
and you have half of the clubs in the pack (six 
or seven) you are fairly safe to make two-odd 
in clubs, even with all five honors against you ; 
even with five clubs to an honor (and your 
partner's no-trump hand) your bid is not a 
preposterous one. But when you hold but four 
trumps, you are too short to do any ruffing; and 
as your object in changing the bid was simply 
that you might be able to do some ruffing with 
your weak hand, it follows that you must not 
change it on any four-card suit. 

The idea has spread that you must "warn 
your partner away from a no-trump" whenever 
you have no help for him; but players do not 



Team- WorK 77 

wait to be instructed on the proper material on 
which this warning-bid is to be made. They are 
so thrilled with their new discovery, that they 
are constantly found bidding "two diamonds* ' 
on four to the queen-jack-ten (and not another 
trick on the hand) or on the queen and three 
little spots. You see how foolish such bids would 
be. You are too weak for ruffing and you as- 
sume a contract that is twice as heavy as was 
your partner's; also (and this is very important) 
you are far more apt to be doubled. No one will 
double your partner's no-trump, for no one 
doubles bids of one, therefore, he cannot lose 
more than fifty a trick. Any one may double 
your two diamonds, and you may lose one 
hundred a trick. 

It is because of these excellent rules that we 
are enabled to bid the light no-trumpers that 
we bid to-day. We bid them to avoid opening 
with a spade; the adversaries are far more apt 
to bid against our no-trump than against our 
spade, and we are not left to play a hope- 
less hand. You cannot bid a no-trump on 
nothing, of course. You must have three suits 
stopped, at least. But you can bid it on next 
to nothing, — and on hands that used to be 
considered helping hands only. The adversaries 
will probably take you out of your no-trumper; 



78 Auction Hig'h-Lig'Hts 

if they don't, it is almost a safe gamble that your 
partner has help for you; and if he has no help, 
he may at least hold material enough for a 
warning-bid. 

It is never necessary to warn twice. " A word 
to the wise is sufficient." If you warn your 
partner away from his suit and he returns to it, 
let him alone. 

And it is not necessary to warn if the inter- 
vening adversary bids. In that case, your part- 
ner does not hold the bid when it comes to you. 
Why warn him away from something which he 
does n't have? The mere fact of your passing, 
instead of raising his bid, is proof enough that 
you cannot help him. 

If you are the dealer and have opened with 
"one spade," and your partner says "a no- 
trump," you are relieved of the necessity for 
any warning-bid. Your opening-bid was warn- 
ing enough; third hands should hold very good 
cards to go to no-trumps when their partners 
have opened with "a spade." 

Here is the most striking example of the wis- 
dom of these rules that I have seen recently : 






Tea m-WorK 



79 



s> 




* 


765432 





875 


* 


109 8 2 



£i QJ9862 

643 

4 763 


Y 
A B 

Z 


<£? 10743 
4k AQJ 
KQ10 
4 KJ5 




^ AK5 
4k K98 
£> AJ92 

^ AQ4 





Z bid "a no-trump, " A went by, and Y made 
the warning over-call of "two clubs, " on "any 
six-card suit." Every one passed, and Y made 
four-odd against extremely clever defense; 
against ordinary defense he would have made 
game without any trouble. 

Z could not have made even his book at no- 
trump. He was clever enough not to go back 
to his suit after Y's warning-bid, for he realized 
that both his diamonds and spades must posi- 
tively be led up to — and that his side hand would 
be a wonderful help in clubs. In spite of the 
fact that four of the club honors lay against them, 
Y's great length in clubs precluded the proba- 



80 Auction Hig'H-Lig'Hts 

bility of any other player holding very many of 
that suit. It was a wonderfully correct bid. 

But you can see, can you not, how aghast 
the ordinary player would be to hear u a two- 
club " bid on Y's hand? " ' Two clubs ' on that 
hand! And you call yourself a conservative 
player!" You know the line of arguments such 
a bid would elicit. Then, convinced of having 
discovered something brilliant and desirous of 
impressing less well-informed acquaintances, 
they would proceed to over-call " no-trumps' ' on 
hands like this : 

£> 985 
* Q432 
O 10 8 7 
4* 763 

There s no six-card suit in that hand; there 
is no " five-card suit that runs to a ten or higher " ; 
there is no short suit or missing suit ; and there 
is no sense in the bid. 

In nullos, a warning over-call s more necessary 
even than in no-trump for the reason that no suit 
can go against one as over-whelmingly as nullos. 
This is because of the exposed Dummy; every 
one can take advantage of Dummy's high cards 
and force them to take tricks. If a singleton 
king lies on the board, it can always be made to 



Team-Worh 81 

take; whereas, in other suits, an exposed king 
never takes if the adversaries hold his ace. // 
your partner bids nullos and you hold a strong 
hand, you should never fail to over-call, as a sign 
of dangerous strength. Your hand is not neces- 
sarily a menace because it holds some aces or 
kings, provided that it holds also several low cards 
in the same suits as the aces and kings. If the 
intervening adversary has over-bid your partner, 
you need sound no warning note. 

A mistaken idea has arisen that a warning bid 
must necessarily be " backward, " — i. e., must 
be in a suit that is lower than your partner's. 
This is not true. If, on a clean score, your part- 
ner bids "a heart, " the next adversary passes, 
and you say "a royal," that is a warning-bid. 
Royals are higher than hearts, but they are 
no better for game, on a clean score. If you 
had any heart-help, you would pass and use your 
royals as a side-suit, unless they held four or 
five honors. Your over-call therefore shows that 
you lack heart-help, or hold high honors in a 
better suit! It is a warning to get away from 
hearts. If your partner goes back to his hearts, 
let him alone, unless you hold five royal-honor si 
His return to his suit, after your warning over- 
call, may show that he has five heart-honors 
and is chicane in royals. Your suit may fit 



82 Auction HigH-LigHts 

him no better than his fits you. If you do 
happen to hold five royal-honors, go back again 
to your royals, and then he should let you alone. 
You have positively announced high honors in 
a better suit than his. Your first over-call may 
simply have been a declaration of heart-weak- 
ness and a fair royal-suit. Your second over- 
call announces positively that your hand is 
more valuable than his can possibly be. It is 
very bad team-work when two partners continue 
to bid each other up, while the adversaries sit 
still and smile at the thought of the penalties 
which grow more probable every moment. 

Remember, then, when you warn, do it on 
the first round, do it only if you have the material 
and do it only once, — unless your suit is better 
than your partner's can possibly be. 

Good team-work pre-supposes a certain 
amount of self-effacement and the consideration 
of one's partner as well as of one's-self . 

All that I have just said, pre-supposes that 
the adversary passes your partner's bid. If he 
bids, in place of passing, it is a different question. 
You need worry no longer over danger-signals 
and warnings; you have your choice of four 
things — passing, raising your partner's bid, 
naming a suit of your own, and doubling the 
adversary. 



Team-Worh 83 

Naming a suit of your own is your proper 
choice, only when that suit is better than your 
partner's, and will put your game in fewer tricks. 

Passing is your proper choice only when you 
cannot possibly raise your partner's bid, and 
cannot possibly make a legitimate bid of your 
own. To pass when you can raise, or can bid, 
is to shirk your responsibilities, unless you pass 
in the hope of defeating the adversary's bid. Then 
your pass is more than warranted, — it is advis- 
able. It is better to defeat than to bid, unless your 
bid would put you game. But don't harbor 
many hopes of defeating " one-bids." 

Also, never double "one-bids" and never double 
the only bid you can defeat. You give the 
adversary and his partner the chance to make a 
safe shift. If you use this rule, you will make 
fewer doubles; but you will never make one 
that you regret ! My pupils are noted for never 
losing a double ! 

Raising your partner's bid properly, requires 
a perfect knowledge of the raising rules. For- 
tunately, they are explicit. 

You cannot raise on trumps alone ; you cannot 
raise on any one suit alone (except a long estab- 
lished suit at no-trumps) ; you cannot raise on 
only one trick, — you must hold two tricks, — a 
"trick" and a " raiser." 



84 Auction HigH-LigHts 

Three things are " tricks' ' and five things are 
" raisers/' Tricks are side-aces, side-kings, and 
guarded trump-honors. And these three, with 
two additional ones, are raisers; thus, raisers 
are: guarded trump-honors, or side-aces, or 
side-kings, or singletons, or missing-suits. A 
plain singleton is one "raiser"; a singleton ace 
is two "raisers"; and a blank suit is two 
"raisers." And your trick and your raiser must 
lie in different suits 1 

Guarded queens are not "raisers," in a suit- 
make, because the third round of a side-suit is 
too apt to be ruffed by one of the adversaries. 
In no-trump, on the contrary, any guarded 
honor is "a trick, " and any other guarded honor 
is "a raiser," — because there is no ruffing. 

If your partner bids "a diamond " and the next 
hand says "a heart," you can not say "two 
diamonds" on th's hand: 

9 96 

* Q84 

<^ A10 7 5 32 

4 105 

The only tricks you have are trumps, and 
"you must not raise on trumps alone." The 
adversaries will be leading and they will not lead 
trumps. You may lose six, or even seven, tricks 



Team- Work 85 

before you ever get in. Don't you know that 
old cry of " I can't get in ! " Of course you can't 
get in with three suits against you and only one 
with you. 

On this hand, on the contrary, you can easily 
say "two diamonds." 

6 

* Q1097 

<^ 8542 
4fc A763 

You hold a singleton and can ruff the adver- 
sary's suit on the second round; you have several 
little trumps, for ruffing ; and you can stop spades 
as soon as they are led; you can "get in," and 
run the hand to suit yourself. 

On this hand you can say "two diamonds," 
and later, "three diamonds," and "four dia- 
monds": 

ty A432 

9643 
4 K985 

Your ace of hearts is "a trick," your king of 
spades is one "raiser, " and your singleton ace of 
clubs is "two raisers." You will never lose a 
round of clubs. 



86 Auction HigH-LigHts 

To raise your partner once, you must hold one 
trick and one " raiser." To raise him twice, 
you must hold one trick and two "raisers"; 
to raise him three times, you must hold one trick 
and three " raisers, " — and so on. And it is your 
absolute duty to announce every "raiser" you 
hold! 

I should not raise my partner's suit-bid if I 
were chicane, even if I held two side-aces. 
Strictly speaking, those aces would be "a trick 
and a raiser." But to lack your partner's 
suit entirely would mean that you could n't 
lead to him, that the weak hand could never ruff, 
and that there might be too many trumps held 
against him. 

Of course, improper makes will kill perfectly 
legitimate raises. If your partner bids on a 
jack-suit, and you -raise him on two side-aces 
and a couple of little trumps, the bid may fail. 
But the trouble is with the bid and not with the 
raise. He has no right to bid on a jack-suit. 

The original bidder of a suit should bid 
legitimately. His suit should count seven points 
(counting every honor two and every plain card 
one), — and t should be headed by the ace or the 
king. Queen-bids are irregular but may occa- 
sionally be made; they should come to eight or 
nine points and the hand should hold side 



Team-WorK 87 

strength and ruffs. Also, the player who bids 
on a queen, must go back to his suit if his partner 
tries "no-trumps, " or doubles. But the stand- 
ard make is headed by the ace or king and 
counts seven points, or more. When the origi- 
nal bidder wishes to go up in his suit, he should 
count his losers, — not his takers. The assisting 
hand need not trouble to count losing cards; 
he must simply announce all his legitimate 
14 raisers.' ' 

Let the making hand count all losing cards; 
let the assisting hand announce all "raisers" ; 
then let the making hand deduct his partner's 
announced takers from his own losers, and he will 
know how high to bid. 

Don't you see what sense it makes?" Don't 
you understand that the original bidder kills all 
chances of thus combining the two hands, if 
he insists on unwarranted makes, or on opening- 
bids of more than one? 

I have almost never seen heavy penalties lost 
under this system of combined effort! 

The pre-emptive bidder does atrocious team- 
work, — or rather, he has not grasped its first 
principles. He says to his partner: " Don't in- 
terfere with me, I don't care one iota what you 
have or what you have n't. I 'm going to play 
this hand, whether it combines well with yours, 



88 Auction High-Light s 

or not." On top of this, two adversaries work- 
ing together, are pitted against a player who 
insists on working alone. 

What would you think, of a tennis-player who 
was playing a set of doubles and who would say 
to his partner: " I 'm going to dispense with you, 
altogether; get out of my way. I 'm going to 
play net, and I 'm going to play back. Stand 
over on that side-line and don't let me see you 
move a finger. " 

He may be strong enough to do it, but that is not 
the way to play doubles! 

Would you consider that good team-work? 

Learn to think of your partner as well as of 
yourself. Watch the score every minute. Use 
your brain. Give your partner a chance to 
use his. Don't forget that " two heads are better 
than one. " Remember that, on a clean score, 
royals are no better than hearts; it takes four 
of either to go game. When you have twelve on 
the score, royals are better than hearts ; one will 
put you game with two-odd, and the other will 
not. The moment you reach fourteen in your 
score, the two suits are again equalized; two 
of either will give you game. Let your partner 
alone; don't interfere with him unless there is a 
reason; that is, unless you are better than he, 
at that score, or unless your hand would kill 



Team- Work 89 

his and you have a fair chance of pulling off your 
own bid. If you are to be beaten, in your turn, 
the situation is not bettered by your insistent 
over-call. 



CHAPTER IV 

A FEW ARGUMENTS AGAINST PREEMPTIVE BIDS 

In the preceding chapter, I showed you what 
poor team-work was done by the pre-emptive 
bidder. In a former book, I described the fre- 
quent danger and the absolute futility of pre- 
emptive bids. They do not pre-empt. If the 
adversary has a better hand than you, he will get 
the bid anyhow; if he has a poorer hand than 
you, you might as well get your bid as cheaply as 
possible. The only opening-bid that could 
surely deprive the adversary of his bidding- 
privileges, is " seven no-trumps. " 

I do not propose to go over this ground again. 
But I want to show a few instances of pre-emp- 
tive bidding that I have recently witnessed, and 
let you judge of their results. 

Here is a bid, the results of which pleased me 
greatly : 

Z dealt himself these cards: 
V K2 
*3 
AKQ1042 

4k KQ87 
90 



Preemptive Bids Futile 91 

He was a pre-emptive bidder, and opened with 
"two diamonds," to show high honors, and 
that he wanted to be let alone with his suit. The 
score being twenty-four to nothing in his favor, 
the diamond bid was better than a no-trump, be- 
cause of the club singleton and the short hearts. 

I was playing A, and nearly fainted when I 
heard Z's bid, for this was my hand: 

^? AJ875 

4» 10 

<C> J987653 

Ordinarily, I should never have dreamed of 
hoping to force an adversary very high in dia- 
monds, when I held seven to the jack myself, 
but as Z had been kind enough to announce that 
he held four honors and wanted to play the hand, 
I knew I could get him up. I bid "two hearts." 

Y, relieved of the necessity of a warning-bid, 
wisely passed on this hand: 

9 943 

& KQJ942 

— 

4k A432 

He would have been willing to try "two clubs," 
but not three. He could have been set, at three. 



92 Auction HigH-LigHts 

And if Z had used the club information to go to 
"two no-trumps, " he, in his turn, could have 
been set. All the hearts would have been made 
against him (for I should never had led hearts 
up to a declared stopper); I could take the 
fourth round of diamonds, and B could take the 
fourth round of spades and could stop clubs 
twice. Z's hand and Y's hand would not have 
gone well together ; if there is one unusual hand 
in a deal the other three hands are also apt to be 
out of the ordinary. 

Y passed the two hearts, and B, in his turn, 
passed with these cards : 

9 Q10 6 

4i A8 765 

— 

4 J 109 6 5 

Then Z went to his doom with " three dia- 
monds, " which was exactly what I wanted. I 
doubled in order to stop B from raising the hearts. 
Of course I could not " double everything," 
but I could go back to my hearts if the adver- 
saries changed the suit. 

It is obvious that we could have made three 
hearts, but that would not have been game. 
And three were all we could take on the hand, 
whether I used the cross-ruff or not. Three 



Preemptive Bids Futile 



93 



hearts are twenty-four; plus four honors they 
total fifty-six. And we made hundreds on that 
hand, even after Z's honors were deducted. 

The trouble was all in the information given 
by the preemptive bid. 

I delight in having my adversaries make pre- 
emptive bids — I love to know all they are will- 
ing to tell me. But I don't want my pupils to 
make them, and I certainly don't intend to use 
them myself. 

Here is another instance of the same sort: 





4k 



97 

J7432 
108 7 6 
Q9 




9 854 
4k Q 10 8 
J 432 
4fc AK6 


A 


Y 

B 
Z 


^ A 32 
4k K6 5 

K95 
4k J 10 7 2 




9 

4k 

4> 


K Q J 10 6 
A9 
AQ 
8543 





Z was another preemptive bidder. He 
opened the bidding with "two hearts" to show 



94 Auction HigH-LigfHts 

strength, high honors, and that he wanted to be 
let alone. And it looks like a very good two- 
heart hand; yet, if A-B play correctly, Z cannot 
possibly make two-odd. By the cleverest of 
playing he can take just the odd. A's opening 
lead of course, is the king of spades. Dummy 
goes down, showing an absolutely blank hand, 
unless a spade-ruff can be established, in which 
case Dummy is good for two tricks. It is A's 
business to kill those two tricks. Instead of 
leading spades again he should lead trumps — 
even though he leads up to strength. B should 
take with his ace and lead trumps again — thus 
ruining Y's possible ruff. If Z is clever enough 
to throw his ten of trumps on to the first round 
(retaining his six) Dummy's nine-spot will take 
the second trump round, and diamonds can be 
properly led — from Dummy up to Z's ten-ace. 
This will make one-odd possible for Z; two-odd, 
he cannot make, and he will take but six tricks 
in all, unless he plays high on the first trump 
round. 

The preemptive bid, again, was the cause of 
the trouble. 

Here is a query I received on this subject: 
11 The dealer opened with ' two royals, ' holding 
six spades with four honors, and general strength. 
The next player passed ; and the dealer's partner, 



Preemptive Bids Fmtile 95 

holding six hearts with four honors and a single- 
ton spade, passed also. Should he not have 
shown his heart-suit ?" 

If the dealer opens with "one royal/ ' his 
partner should always over-call, holding six 
hearts to four honors and a singleton spade. 
But a preemptive opening-bid in a major suit 
means that the bidder wants no information and 
wishes to play the hand at his own suit. His 
partner has no further responsibility; it is not 
incumbent upon him to show either strength 
or weakness; the situation is taken out of his 
hands. That is one of the bad points of pre- 
emptive bidding; nothing in Auction is as 
interesting and as subtle as the combining of the 
two hands — the use of the warning-bid and over- 
call — the judgment as to which partner is better 
qualified to play the hand, and which should pro- 
vide the side-support. All of these points are 
obliterated by the preemptive opening-bid. I 
can see but one thing in its possible favor — it 
occasionally saves time and a round or two of 
bids. But who wants to save time at the fre- 
quent expense of safety and at the certain cost 
of concerted action? 

Of course, there are many hands where it 
is perfectly safe to open with two, but even on 
such hands I should rather give my partner a 



96 Auction HigH-Lig'Hts 






chance. It is not a mistake to open with two 
when you are sure you can make them. Many 
persons use that method. But the trouble is 
that the preemptive bid becomes a habit, and 
is often used to the detriment of the hand. 
Witness this proof: 

Z dealt and opened with "two royals"; he 
held eight trumps to two honors, and these cards. 

4b 105 

K 

4k AJ876542 

His partner had not a spade in his hand; he 
held fair clubs running to the king-queen, and 
the ace of hearts, — nothing else. He could have 
bid two clubs and made them ; he did not think 
he had a chance to make three-odd, and his 
partner's preemptive bid had told him that his 
responsibilities were ended. The adversaries 
had the remaining high cards so divided between 
them that neither one cared to out-bid "two 
royals." And Z was set, — with eight trumps in 
his hand. He could not lead trumps from his 
partner's hand to his own; the adversaries took 
three trump-rounds (the king, the queen, and 
the ten), one club-round, one diamond-round, 
and one heart-round, — six in all. 



Preemptive Bids Futile 97 

Had Z opened with "one royal," and had A 
passed, Y would have over-called with "two 
clubs " ; and, as I remember the hand, they would 
have taken four-odd — their losses being confined 
to the ace of clubs, the ace of diamonds, and one 
heart-round. Thus the result of the hand would 
have been twenty-four plus, instead of fifty 
minus. Seventy-four points was the cost of the 
preemptive bid. Yet it looked like an excellent 
two-bid — eight trumps to the ace, jack, and a 
side-singleton. 

It is much more important that your bid should 
be convenient to your partner, than that it should 
be inconvenient to the adversaries! 

If it were not that truth is stranger than fiction, 
I would not ask any one to believe that I actually 
dealt myself this hand the other night : 

ty AKQ10865432 
* AKQ 

— 

* — 

I confess that my first impulse was to bid 
"seven hearts," just to experience the sensa- 
tion, and because I could not fail to make it. 
But sober second-thought forbade. If I bid a 
grand slam right off the bat, how could I hope 
to be doubled? I know that if I heard any one 



98 Auction HigjH-LigHts 

else make such a bid I should feel sure he held the 
material for it, and I should never dream of 
doubling him (unless I knew him for an idiot). 

Suppose, even, that I had the luck to be 
doubled. I could make my contract, but I 
could by no possibility get "a trick over the 
contract," because there are but seven-odd in a 
hand. I listened to the whispers of reason and 
bid "one heart/ ' 

A said "one royal' ' on this combination: 

«£ 2 

O A754 

4 A K 10 9 73 

My partner, Y, went by on this hand: 

V — 

4* J9853 
KQ103 
4k J864 

Fourth hand, B, passed; he, of course, held 
these cards: 

£?9 

4» 10 7 6 4 
J9862 
4k Q52 

I went to "two heart s," and from then on 



Preemptive Bids Futile 99 

hearts and royals were bid against each other. 
B gave his partner one raise; it was a light one, 
and just within the limits of legitimacy. His 
guarded trump-honor was "a trick, " and his 
singleton heart was "a raiser." However, it 
served to raise A's hopes, and to send him up to 
"four royals, " with six losing cards in his hand. 
When I went to "five hearts," he doubled me, 
and my prayers were answered. He had two 
aces in his hand; if they took, they would make 
his book. If his king of spades took, if he got 
a ruff on the clubs, or if his partner captured one 
trick, the double would win. 

Don't gasp when I tell you that I did not 
redouble. I passed and closed the bidding. 
Suppose I redoubled and he went back to royals 
— how could I tell that he could n't make it? 
Even though I covered his bid by saying "six 
hearts," what assurance had I that he would 
double me again? And, even if he did (and it 
would be more luck than I deserved), I could 
not possibly get more than one "extra trick" on 
a six-bid, and I was sure of two of them on a five- 
bid. 

My profits were: Seven tricks worth 16 
apiece; 50 for contract; 50 each for two extra 
tricks; 64 for honors; 40 for slam — a total of 
366. Quite enough for one hand! 



ioo Auction HigH-LigHts 

Could any preemptive bidding have been as 
satisfactory as that? 

If my pen were sufficiently persuasive to 
induce players to give up preemptive bids and 
to pay due attention to the penalty score, 
should rest content. 



CHAPTER V 

A WORD ABOUT NO-TRUMPERS 

Though " no-trumpers " are not bid as con- 
stantly as they were under the old count (and 
let us give thanks for that), they are bid on 
much lighter material. While suit-bids grow- 
more conservative every day, no-trumpers 
grow lighter and lighter. This, of course, 
refers to the opening-bid only. A bid of "a no- 
trump' ' from any one but the dealer should 
be a standard bid. 

The dealer bids lightly to avoid an opening- 
spade. (The adversaries are far more apt to bid 
against "a no- trump* ' than against "a spade".) 
Then he gives no specific information that is 
misleading; to bid in a suit declares probably 
the ace or king of that suit and enough other 
cards to count up to seven points. To bid "a 
no-trump" declares nothing actually, except 
general help. The bid is often made on three 
stoppers; it is made on combinations at which 
old Bridge players would gasp. They wanted 

IOI 



102 



Auction HigH-Lig;hts 



all the strength in the pack before they ventured 
on a no-trump bid. 

In old Bridge, to bid no-trump was to play 
no-trump. In Auction this is not necessarily 
so. Your bid may easily be taken away from 
you by one of the adversaries. If neither ad- 
versary bids, your partner has probably a fair 
hand, which will be a help in "filling" your own. 
If neither adversary bids and your partner has 
no help, he may, at least, hold material enough 
for a warning-bid (five cards to an honor) ; and 
even if he has not, you may not lose more than 
two-odd, and that is no worse than opening with 
"a spade" and being left with it. 

You can bid no-trump without an ace — 
almost an unheard-of thing in the old days! 
Singletons and missing suits are much greater 
deterrents than a lack of aces ! Even a singleton 
in a suit which your partner has announced is 
very bad. Suppose his suit does n't clear in one 
round, and he has no side reentry, — then where 
are you? His hand is absolutely useless to 
you. If you don't need his hand, and simply 
want to know that that particular suit is not 
established against you, then your singleton 
need not worry you. But if you need his suit 
in order to make your bid, don't think that your 
one lead will necessarily be enough to clear it. 



A Word About No-Trumpers 103 

I bid opening no-trumpers on hands that are 
the ghosts of what we used to consider proper 
material for such a bid. So do all Auction 
players. Of course, it takes more skill to play a 
light hand than a safe one, and for that reason 
it is impossible to advise any one explicitly 
with regard to the lightness of a possible no- 
trumper until you know the degree of skill 
with which he plays. But this general state- 
ment may be made: No-trumpers are growing 
lighter day by day, while suit-bids are growing 
more and more conservative. It is a race among 
professional players to see who can pull off the 
lightest no-trumper. 

The first great test of a no-trumper is whether 
the hand holds two unprotected suits ; if it does 
it does not warrant a no-trump bid. One suit 
you may safely trust to your partner; but it 
would be rather optimistic to expect him to 
take care of two. 

Blank suits are bars to no-trump bids; if 
" length is strength" in no-trump (and it cer- 
tainly is), it follows that " shortness is weak- 
ness"; nothing, of course, is so short as a suit 
in which you are blank. Moreover, if you lack 
an entire suit, you will be apt to hold an unusual 
number of cards in some other suit, and that is 
the suit on which you should bid. Then your 



104 Auction HigH-LigHts 

blank suit will be an advantage, because you 
can trump it from the beginning. 

Singletons weaken a no-trump hand, but do not 
prevent a no-trump bid. If you wait for every- 
thing you will rarely get a no-trumper. If you 
hold a singleton in a suit, that suit probably 
will be bid against your no-trumper. If it is, 
you can drop your bid; if it is not, it is safe to 
assume that your partner holds at least a stopper. 

But even in the old days of standard no- 
trumpers it was considered possible to make 
the bid on an average hand that had not more 
than one unprotected suit. And an " average' ' 
hand was one which held this (or its equivalent) : 

One ace, one king, one queen, one jack, one 
ten, one nine, and so on down the line. Two 
kings and two queens could be considered the 
equivalent of one ace, one king, and one queen; 
the four cards without an ace, and the three 
cards with an ace, make approximately the same 
strength. 

Now take, as example, a hand that was 
recently sent me by an unknown correspondent. 
He wanted to know what would be the proper 
opening-bid on such a hand, and said that he 
often held similar ones, that they seemed too 
good for "a spade, " yet certainly not good 
enough for "a no-trump. M Such hands would 






A. Word AJbovit No-Trumpers 105 

certainly not have been good enough for "a 
no-trump' ' in the old days, before warning- 
bids were discovered and before adversaries 
had grown wise enough to leave you "in" with 
"a spade." Neither should I advise no-trump 
bids on such hands, from any player who was 
not forced to bid; but, as dealer, I should never 
hesitate to say "one no-trump." 

<S? KQ98 

<$ J 

J 10 5 3 

4 A632 

The singleton jack of clubs is the weakest 
point in that hand. All other face-cards are 
properly guarded. 

First ask yourself, " Is there more than one un- 
protected suit?" and the answer, of course, is 
1 ' No . ' ' Clubs are the only suit in which the hand 
does not hold protection. Four diamonds to the 
jack might not prove a stopper if the card next 
to the jack did not happen to be the ten-spot, 
but it is, and a sequence-stopper is always safe. 

Then put the "average" test to the hand, 
and you will find that it holds : 

One ace, one king, one queen, two jacks 
(one more than the average), one ten, one nine, 
one eight, one six, one five, two threes, and one 



106 Auction Hig'H-Lig'Hts 

two. It lacks only a seven and a four, and in 
their places it holds a jack and a three; the three 
is but one point lower than a four, and the jack 
is four points higher than a seven; the hand is, 
therefore, three points above the average; it 
holds but one unprotected suit; it is thus a 
no-trumper. 

When it comes to hands that are under the 
standard, it is impossible, as I said before, to 
give any hard-and-fast law as to how light the 
bid may be. Personally, I bid no-trumps on 
the sketchiest kind of hands, unless I am well 
ahead and playing conservatively in consequence. 
An ace in one suit, a protected king in another, 
and a protected queen in a third, will always 
elicit a no-trump bid from me — particularly 
if there be a jack or ten thrown in somewhere. 
Two guarded kings and two guarded queens, 
scattered through three different suits, is an- 
other no-trump combination. 

Here is another interesting no-trump query 
that I received: 

The dealer dealt himself the following cards: 

4> K 10 4 

QJ 10 98762 

* A 



A. Word About No-Trumpers 107 

He opened with "a no-trump, " because it 
was much too good for "a spade, " and because 
he had heard so many criticisms on queen-bids 
that he was unwilling to say " a diamond." The 
questions put to me were: First, was the no- 
trump bid warranted? Second, was the dia- 
mond bid barred? And, third, if a diamond 
bid were correct, should it be one, or two? 

I am simply delighted with the opportunities 
presented by this hand to illustrate the great 
principles of sound bidding, and I will answer 
the queries in order. 

First, the no-trump bid was thoroughly bad. 
Never bid "a no-trump" on a hand that holds 
two singletons; even though they are aces, they 
are still singletons. If the diamond suit were 
" established" (that is, if it held all the top 
cards), it would be safe to bid the no-trump 
because when you took the first heart-round, 
or spade-round, you would have a long suit 
ready and waiting, and the fact that you had no 
more hearts, or spades, would n't hurt you. 

But with a long suit that needed establishing, 
the no-trump bid was too risky. Provided it 
were allowed to stand, the adversary would be 
almost sure to lead a heart or a spade — thus 
pulling the dealer's singleton on the first round. 
Before the diamond suit was established the 



108 Auction Hig'H-Li&'Hts 

adversaries would be more than apt to take one 
round and to return to their original lead. Then 
what about the no-trumper? 

With a declared trump, singleton side-aces 
are wonderful helps. They mean that you will 
never lose a round of that suit ; you will take the 
first round and trump all subsequent rounds. 
But in no-trump, a singleton ace means that 
you must lose every round of a suit except the 
first. You see the difference between losing 
no round, and losing every round but one! 

That answers the first question ; no no-trump 
bids on hands that hold two singletons. The 
next two questions I will answer together: Was 
a diamond-bid justifiable, and should it have 
been one or two? 

A diamond-bid was more than justifiable, it 
was imperative. From the very beginning I 
have always insisted upon allowing queen-bids if 
they were " wonderfully long, held an honor or 
honors other than the queen, and if the hand 
held outside strength such as aces, kings, or 
ruffs." 

Just see how the present hand fulfills all these 
conditions! 

But I have warned you that having bid on a 
queen-suit, you may deceive your partner in 
regard to no-trump bids or doubles; if he at- 



j\ 'Word .About No-Trumpers 109 

tempts either of these, go back to your queen- 
suit once, to warn him that it is a long weak 
suit, useful as trumps, but lacking the top cards 
which are necessary in no-trumps or in doubles. 

Open that hand with "one diamond. " Never 
open with two to show a long weak suit; it is a 
thoroughly unsound method. It assumes a 
heavier contract than is necessary, and gives 
your partner less chance to change the bid if it 
does not suit his hand. Open with one, and if 
no one bids against you, you have a light con- 
tract; also, if your partner wants to change 
the suit, he has but to exceed seven points. But 
if he goes to no-trump, he may be trusting you for 
the high diamonds. Change his no-trump to 
"two diamonds, " and at once your story is 
told. You have made a "backward" bid, 
which is a signal of weakness in his suit — and his 
suit (in no-trump) is aces and kings. 

Don't you see how much more sensible it is? 
Your two-bid means weakness, but you save it 
until the second round, and often you don't 
have to make it at all. If your partner passes, 
or if he bids anything but no-trump, your one- 
bid is all right. If he says no-trump, then, and 
then only, the two-bid becomes necessary, and 
it is no heavier than if you had bid it on the 
first round. 



no Auction HigH-LigHts 

If your partner returns to his no-trump, it 
shows that he is not inconvenienced by the fact 
that you lack the high diamonds. Then let him 
alone; don't continue to bid against him, after 
you have given him the one 'warning that was 
demanded of you. 

With any unpleasant and difficult task, it is 
certainly much wiser to wait and see whether 
it is going to be necessary to undertake it, 
rather than to assume it at once for fear it might 
some day become necessary. So with a two- 
bid! 

This next query came to me from Illinois: 

"Will you please tell me how to bid the 
following hand on an opening- bid : 

9 Q J 53 
£ A72 
A53 
4k A32 

"The dealer bid it 'one heart'; her partner 
got the bid at 'two diamonds/ and afterward 
said the dealer should have declared a ' no- 
trump. ' I (the writer) should have opened with 
'one spade/ to find where the cards were. I 
consider it a very poor no-trumper, and an 
equally poor heart. What do you think ?" 

There is no possible question about that bid ; 



A. Word -About No-Trumpers in 

it is distinctly a "no-trumper," and nothing else 
I will show you why it is a no-trumper, and 
why it is not a heart nor a spade bid. Every 
hand should be bid on the best suit possible; 
sometimes, when you have your choice of two 
suits, the score will make the lower suit advis- 
able — as when your hand would permit either 
hearts or no-trump, and you have eight on the 
score. Then I should choose the hearts (par- 
ticularly if I held good honors,) because a suit- 
bid is generally safer than a no-trump, and 
because the score makes game with three-odd, 
whether you play it at hearts or at no-trumps. 
In other words, the score destroys the no-trump 
precedence. 

The score is not given on this hand, but it 
would make no difference, for there is no question 
of choice. The hand says " yes " to all no-trump 
tests, and "no" to all suit -tests. 

Are there two unprotected suits in that hand ? 
There are not; there is not even one. Every 
suit is definitely stopped. 

Does it bear the "average" test — {i.e., one 
ace, one king, one queen, one jack, etc.)? It 
stands well above this test; instead of an ace, 
one king, one queen, one jack — it holds three 
aces, a queen, and a jack. It holds, therefore, 
an ace in place of a king, and an extra ace to 



H2 Auction HigH-LigHts 

cover the deficiency in tens and nines. It is 
well above the average. 

Does it hold honors? Yes — thirty of them. 

Why, then, is it not a no-trumper ? The 
no-trump declaration will start up the bidding, 
where a spade declaration would silence it. It 
will force the adversaries to two in anything. 
And it will debar them from an adverse no- 
trumper. 

A heart bid should be headed by the ace or 
king (queen, at a pinch, when the suit is unusu- 
ally long and the hand holds side-ruffs). But, 
in addition to ace or king, the hearts must come 
to seven points — counting two points for every 
honor and one point for every plain card. This 
hand comes to six points and holds neither ace 
nor king. It is an absolutely impossible heart 
declaration. 

If this hand were not opened with a no- 
trump it would have to be bid at "one spade 1 ' 
— and it is far too good for so misleading a bid. 
Never bid "a spade' ' unless you have to; it is 
shirking legitimate responsibility to bid it on 
such cards. The practice of bidding a spade 
"to wait and see" is dead, killed by the fact 
that you won't see anything. Players used to 
be sufficiently obliging as to furnish dealers with 
desired information ; now they have grown wiser. 



/ 



.A Word About No-Trumpers 113 

And that is another argument against taking 
the dealer out of "a spade"; it destroys his 
chances of sitting round to find out what the 
others hold, and makes the " forced bid" a real 
thing — just as it was intended to be. Bidding 
"a spade" to wait is old-fashioned; and bidding 
against a waiting spade is equally old-fashioned. 
The former bid cannot live unless the latter bid 
supports it. 

There is no distinct "call" for no-trumps, 
to-day. The two-spade call, as I shall explain in 
a later chapter, calls equally for royals and no- 
trumps. And, in any case, no player should 
call when he is able to bid. It is a little too much 
to hold a perfectly good no-trump hand, and 
to ask your partner to be the one to bid no- 
trumps. Moreover, you expose the stronger 
hand (as Dummy) and that is always a mistake. 

There used to be a question asked me con- 
stantly: "Is it obligatory to bid no-trumps, 
holding three aces and not another trick?" 

There are no "obligatory" bids. The hand 
in question is the most hopeless form of no- 
trumper; yet it is a hand on which I, personally, 
should always bid either a no-trump, or a nullo. 
I should never waste three aces on a spade. 

If the cards under the aces were sevens, 
eights, nines, and tens, I should choose the 

8 



H4 Auction Hig'H-Lig'Hts 

no-trump bid (provided the hand offered no 
seven-point suit-bid). If the cards under the 
aces were deuces, treys, fours, fives, and sixes 
(in preponderance, I mean), my bid would 
certainly be "one nullo." True, my thirty 
aces would then count for the adversaries; but 
thirty honor-points are not overwhelmingly 
valuable ; and, by bidding a no-trump on such 
a hand and striking a combination in my 
partner's hand that offered neither help nor 
warning-bid, — I might lose several hundred 
honor-points. 

Now a word as to the proper time to play no- 
trump hands. Bid them on slight materials 
to avoid a spade-bid, and play them on slight 
materials on a clean score — for the reason that 
no-trump is then the only suit that will put you 
game with three-odd. But the moment you have 
scored, choose, in preference to no-trump, any 
suit-bid that will put you game in just as few 
tricks. For instance, if you have as much as 
three on the score, three royals (27) will put you 
game just as much asthree no-trumps. I should 
choose the royal in preference. I should always 
play a suit-bid rather than a no-trumper — unless 
the latter was phenomenal. The moment there 
was six on my score I should play either hearts 
or royals in preference to no-trumps (three of 



A "Word About No-Trumpefs 115 

any of them would put you game); and with 
twelve on the score I should take any good 
suit-bid rather than the no-trump. 

After the opening-bid, no player should bid 
no-trumps unless he has proper material. After 
a suit-bid by the adversary, no player should 
bid no-trump unless he stops that suit. This is 
the one unbreakable rule. Never bid no-trump 
unless you stop the adversary's suit! 

The light no-trumpers with which dealers 
now open, should make third-hands very careful 
about raising. The dealer may feel that, with 
ordinary help, he can just about squeeze out the 
odd ; he may be totally unable to take two odd. 

If the dealer opens with a no-trump and 
second-hand over-calls with two in some suit, 
third-hand should hold more than a stopper in 
that suit, in order to say two no-trumps. He 
should hold such a stopper and two other possi- 
ble tricks. 

If the dealer raises his own no-trump once, 
he marks it as a standard bid. Third-hand can 
then raise it once on "one trick and one raiser/ ' 
and an additional once for every additional 
raiser he holds. "Tricks" and "raisers" in no- 
trumps are any properly-guarded honors. 

If the dealer opens with "one no-trump" it is 
not an unheard-of thing for one of the adver- 



n6 Auction High-Lights 

saries to answer with "two no-trumps. This is 
sometimes advisable, but generally risky. If a 
player wants to save rubber, and has a general 
hand on which he could not possibly bid two in 
any suit, he should bid "two no-trumps" against 
an adverse "one no-trump." He is in a better 
position to do this if he sits on the left of the 
original no-trump hand than if he sits on its 
right. It is supposed to be worth a trick or two 
to have the privilege of playing the hand and 
to make the adversary discard on one's own long 
suits. But I should not advise this bid in any 
but the most compelling circumstances and to 
any players who are not fairly expert. 

While there is a certain fascination about a 
no-trump hand, I think it is usually conceded 
to be the easiest hand to play. And certainly it 
is the hardest hand to save when things go wrong. 
Give me a suit-bid, if I am to play a shaky hand. 

One of the greatest of French poets was asked 
if it were not very difficult to write a poem, and 
he replied: "Difficult? Not in the least! It is 
either easy or impossible !" 

I think I never heard a better epigram, and 
it comes into my mind whenever I watch, or 
play, a no-trump hand. A no-trump is always 
"easy or impossible," and there is nothing quite 
so sad in life as a no-trump hand gone wrong. 

/ 



CHAPTER VI 

THE TWO-SPADE CALL — PAST, PRESENT, AND 
FUTURE 

Many letters come to me asking whether the 
dislike that many players feel for the high- 
spade bids (i.e. y "three spades/ ' "four spades," 
"five spades," etc.), will make it necessary to 
drop the " two-spade' ' bid as well. 

I do not believe that the " two-spade" bid will 
ever disappear. It antedated the other spade- 
bids by several years, and it is far too popular 
to be lightly relinquished. I never use it and 
never miss it, but almost every one else is 
devoted to it. The great trouble is that it 
means different things in different places, thus 
causing confusion. 

I never knew Auction without a "two-spade" 
bid. I played the game before it was generally 
known in America, and even when I first learned 
it I was taught that "two spades was a call for 
no-trumps' ' and was made on a general hand 
that was almost , but not quite, a no-trumper. 

117 



n8 Auction HigH-LigHts 

Later, a great deal of discussion arose among the 
various authorities as to whether, or not, the 
spade-suit must be stopped in order to make the 
call. I had been taught to bid "two spades" 
on a hand of general assistance, even though 
the spades were not stopped. I think now 
that that was a mistake, even under the old 
count. 

Of course, in those days, a no-trump call 
was a necessity. The black suits were so low 
as scarcely to exist, and one red suit (diamonds) 
counted only what our lowest suit (clubs) counts 
now. No-trumps were worth twelve instead 
of ten; they were considerably more valuable 
than anything we have to-day, and all other 
suits (save hearts) were considerably lower than 
they are to-day. Therefore, Auction was a no- 
trump race, and the call was almost a necessity. 

Then came the new count and overturned our 
previous ideas. No-trump was still the high- 
est suit, and the only one that would put you 
game with three-odd, on a clean score. But it had 
lost its original prestige and the suits had all 
gained in value. The new suit of royals was 
almost as tempting as no-trumps, but one point 
less valuable, exceedingly worth while in regard 
to its honors, and possessed the added charm of 
novelty. The game regained its lost variety; 



The Two-Spade Call 119 

we had almost forgotten how to play suit-bids 
and were getting a shade weary of no-trumpers. 

The next discovery was that we could bid no- 
trumpers on almost nothing, because we were 
giving our partners no definite and misleading 
information; because it forced the adversaries 
to a two-bid; because "warning-bids" had been 
invented for the use of partners who were un- 
able to assist in no-trumps ; and because to bid 
no-trumps was not necessarily to play no-trumps 
— as it used to be in Bridge. The chances were 
largely that some one would relieve you of your 
contract. Suit-bids became more and more con- 
servative every day, for the reason that they gave 
definite information regarding one suit, and that 
information must be true, or raises from a trust- 
ing partner might come to grief. But no-trump 
was bid on hands which formerly would have 
warranted nothing but a "call." Therefore the 
necessity for the " two-spade" bid in its original 
form disappeared. 

Nevertheless, that is what "two spades" 
means to-day to three persons out of five — "a 
general assisting hand with a stopper in spades, 
not quite strong enough for a no-trump bid, but 
extending a no-trump invitation to partner." 
- One of the greatest of American authorities 
is responsible for the newer "two-spade" call. 



120 Auction Hig'H-Lig'Hts 

He says it should mean "two quick tricks in 
spades and another ace." And that, I am sure, 
is the most useful form for the bid. That is 
what it would mean from me if I used it ; strange, 
as it may seem, I have never yet had occasion 
to use it; I have never held "two quick tricks 
in spades and another ace" without holding 
enough other cards to warrant either a royal bid 
or a no-trump bid. But should those particular 
cards come to me I should certainly bid "two 
spades" if I were with players who demanded 
it, and "one spade " otherwise. 

Here are some typical "two-spade" hands: 

ty A763 

4» 982 

10 5 3 

4 AK4 

No one could possibly bid "a no-trump" 
on such a hand as that ; I should bid it " a spade " ; 
but there are those who think it too good for "a 
spade," as it holds three virtually sure tricks. 

4k A986 
<> 643 
4k KQ73 



THe Two-Spade Call 121 

V 98 
Jh J43 
A6 5 42 
4 AQJ 

Both those hands must be bid "one spade," 
or "two spades. " There is no other possible 
bid. The first might be opened with "a 
nullo" — but it would be very unsafe; and the 
second would never warrant a "nullo 1 '-bid — 
the spade-suit would kill it. 

In no case must a dealer be "left in" with a 
two-spade call. If the following adversary does 
not bid, the dealer's partner must. And on this 
newer call, it is either an invitation to no-trumps 
or royals, and the partner must respond accord- 
ing to his own cards. 

In that fact lies my dislike of conventional 
calls, the fact that third-hand's bid is absolutely 
forced. If my adversary makes a conventional 
bid, I never bid and help him out. I leave that 
to his poor partner and reserve my own bid for 
a later round. 

The author of a recent book on Auction still 
adheres to the old two-spade call on a general 
hand with spades stopped. But I am quite 
sure that the most popular significance among 
first-grade players is the one I have just given 



122 Auction Hig'H-LigHts 

you — "two quick tricks in spades and another 
ace." 

A few players use the no-trump call on hands 
that demand a no-trump bid. That is shirking 
legitimate responsibility ; it is demanding a good 
deal to ask your partner to bid no-trumps when 
you should do it yourself. 

Now, knowing these various ideas regarding 
the two-spade call, I was placed the other day 
in the following position: I was playing in a 
strange place with a partner and two adversaries 
whose game I did not know. At another table 
were four players whose game was also unknown 
to me ; and from that table was brought me the 
following hand, with this question: "What 
must I bid on this hand when my partner said 
'Two spades' and the second hand passed ?" 

V 75 

£> J 10 9 6 

4 10 8 7 5 

I advised a bid of "one royal," although it 
was obvious that if the call had been made on 
rather weak general support and one spade 
stopper there was very slight chance of doing 
much with the hand. The royal-bid stood as 



THe Two-Spade Call 123 

final, and the declarant scored two-odd ; but this 
is the hand that was laid down by the player who 
had opened with " two spades' ' : 

9 A 10 9 
4* A 54 

<0> A 10 8 
4 J963 

So you see that though the call is usually 
accepted as an invitation to no-trump, it is a 
little difficult to judge on what it has been made. 
And when the third-hand is caught with poor 
cards, yet knows his bid is demanded of him, he 
may be in a rather uncomfortable position. 
When so placed, the safest bid is "one royal"; 
it reduces the contract to one-odd instead of 
two, and you know, at least, that your partner 
has a stopper in the suit. But with fewer than 
two spades in your hand, you cannot respond 
with a royal-bid; and even with two it is a risk. 

Thus, it will be seen that in the past, the " two- 
spade" call was a definite and comprehensible 
bid; it meant a generally assisting hand, with 
spades stopped, — and asked for a no-trump 
bid from partner. That bid is useless now, 
because we bid no-trumps, on such a hand, 
instead of calling for it. 



124 Auction High-Lights 

In the present, the " two-spade' ' call is unhap- 
pily conglomerate. It may mean what it used 
to mean ; or it may mean a perfectly good no- 
trump bid; or it may mean, "two quick tricks 
in spades, and another ace. ,, 

The latter combination should be, I am sure, 
its future meaning. As long as the partner of the 
"two-spade" bidder is forced to respond, he 
should know to what he is responding. I greatly 
dislike that point about all conventional bids; 
to be safe, to be an aid, they must, perforce, be 
specific. And "specific information by word 
of mouth, " seems incongruous, to me, with the 
highest card ethics. 



CHAPTER VII 

" PASSING A SPADE" 

One of the least-appreciated privileges in 
Auction is " passing a spade." Those who have 
grasped it, love it; but the name of those who 
have failed to grasp it, is Legion. 

Bid against the dealer's "one spade" if you 
have a chance of going game on your hand, or if 
you have high honors that you want to harvest, 
not otherwise. Not on any mediocre hand, and 
not to "give information." The dealer is in a 
hole; let his partner be the one to throw him a 
rope ; that is not your duty. 

Bid if you can go game. A game is always 
worth more than the spade penalty. A game 
is half of a rubber, and a rubber is worth 250. 
Therefore a game is intrinsically worth 125. 
That is 25 points more than the spade penalty, 
and you have your trick and honor values in 
addition. 

But partial games are very uncertain things 
and are apt to offer many disappointments. 

125 



126 Auction HigH-LigHts 

Take them if you can get nothing better, but 
remember that the spade penalty is always 
better. 

To take a number of successive spade penalties 
is to make even the rubber value look small. I 
saw a curious game recently. On the first hand 
of the rubber, Z bid "a spade"; A-B could 
have taken two-odd in royals, instead of which 
they played against the spade and made ioo. 
The next hand was an unusual one, and A took 
simply the odd in hearts, and that after a 
tussle. The third hand was an exact repetition 
of the first, and gave A-B another hundred. 
And on each of the two succeeding deals they 
went "game in the hand" first on five-odd in 
royals with 72 honors, and then on a no-trump 
grand slam with 100 aces. Thus their total 
for the rubber was 831, and at the end of it they 
cut in again for partners. 

And just here is the flaw in all the arguments 
I have ever heard against passing "a spade/ ' 
They all presuppose that the same two players 
are to play together continuously. If A-B (in 
the game just described) had followed the plan 
of declaring against a spade they would have 
scored 18 on the first deal (two-odd in royals), 
8 points and 16 honors on the second deal, 18 
points again on the third deal, and one game 



"Passing a Spade" 127 

would have been over. The next hand they 
would have gone rubber with 45 points and 72 
honors. And the rubber would have been worth 
427 instead of 831. For one or the other of 
them that third game would not have existed, 
as an asset. 

Considering A and B as members of a firm, 
they closed their partnership 404 points richer 
each than they would have been had they bid 
against "aspade." That404 was "real money/' 
which would prove either a mitigation of future 
losses or a nucleus for future gains. And it was 
made by passing "a spade," laying up 100 points, 
and keeping the rubber open for a longer time. 

It would be idiocy to "keep a rubber open" 
if you were losing. But if you are laying up 100 
neat little points on each hand that causes the 
delay, you can continue that delay indefinitely. 
You will soon reach the point where the other 
side cannot "afford " to go rubber, where to do so 
would be a loss. Even if luck changes and 
the adversaries take rubber, you are still the 
winners. And if the luck does not change, 
you take an enormous rubber. And there is no 
more reason why it should change than why it 
should continue. 

Of course, if it changes and you get spade 
declarations, while the adversaries are clever 



128 Auction HigH-Li^Kts 

enough not to declare against you, then you lose 
your winnings and every one is back at the 
starting point, with nothing lost but time. And 
that is the worst that can happen to you when 
you lay up ' ' velvet . ' ' 

Play is chance. The man who is afraid to 
take a chance should never play. He should 
stay out. Our reason for playing (apart from 
the mental enjoyment) is that we hope each 
hand is going to be good to us. Now if we get 
a hand that is good to us, so good as to offer 
us ioo easily won points, why not profit by the 
chance? 

Every short sure rubber is a low one. There 
are but two types of men who play for them, one 
is the overcautious man and the other is the man 
who holds a penny so close to his eyes that he 
cannot see a dollar a yard away. 

Remember this when you hear arguments 
against passing a spade; they are either based 
on the supposition that two partners are to play 
together continuously, or they take it for granted 
that each deal would have been "game in the 
hand" instead of a partial game. And from the 
beginning I have urged you to bid your hand 
whenever you saw the chance of going game on it. 

Suppose you bid against the dealer's spade, 
score\i8 points, and the "luck changes." You 



u Passing a Spade" 129 

have 18 with which to discount your subsequent 
bad luck; suppose, instead, that you defeat the 
spade, take 100 points, and the luck changes; 
you are 82 points richer than you would other- 
wise be. The player who fails to seize such 
opportunities loses many valuable chances. 

To take an extreme example. Suppose you 
get all your good cards on the adversaries' deals 
— and suppose you could go rubber on four such 
deals (your own intermediate deals being 
mediocre ones on which you or your opponents 
score but the odd), three hands to a game is not 
an unusual allowance. Now, suppose that on 
each of those four hands you do not bid — seeing 
that you have no wonderful honors and cannot 
hope to go game — and that each time you score 
the extreme spade penalty. Then the four 
hands will bring you 400 points, whereas, if you 
bid and went rubber the 250, plus your trick 
and honor values, could not total 400. And, 
in addition to this, the rubber is still open; you 
have as good a chance to win it as you ever had, 
and it is enhanced by 400 extra points. 

Which is greater, one five-hundred or five 
one-hundreds? 

The average school child will tell you that 
they are equal, and the average school child 
will be right. 



130 Auction Hig'H-Lig'Hts 

But the average Auction player (judging from 
his game) will insist that one five-hundred is 
infinitely greater than five one-hundreds; he 
will clasp the former to his bosom with joy, but 
will turn up a scornful nose when Fate offers 
him the latter! 

To leave the adversaries "in with a spade' ' 
five times, and to score the extreme spade- 
penalty, is to get 500 of the easiest points you 
ever got in your life. 

Why is it a joyful thing to get 90 honors in 
royals, or 80 honors in hearts, and a negligible 
thing to get 100 honors by leaving the adver- 
sary in with "a spade"? Of course, if you can 
go game on the royal hand, or the heart hand, its 
value is immensely increased; then you must 
bid. But I am thinking of the hands where 
players are content to make only a couple of odd 
tricks in order to score honors — or of those other 
hands when they are willing to be set in order 
to harvest such honors; and they are right — 
anything which puts you on the plus side of a 
hand is good — provided you do not lose some- 
thing better by taking it. But why should it 
please any one to take 90 minus 50, and displease 
him to take 100 minus nothing? 

Again, why is it more comforting to set the 
adversary for two-odd, on a bid of "five no- 



"Passing a Spade" 131 

trumps," than to set him for two-odd on a bid 
of "one-spade"? In the first instance he has 
a mighty good hand and has made the bid 
because he wanted to ; in the second instance he 
has a mighty poor hand and has made the bid 
because he had to. 

When the dealer declares "a spade" I (as 
second hand) always pass, unless I have a fair 
chance of going "game in the hand, " or unless I 
have good honors in a high suit. Otherwise I 
decline to bid ; even though my own hand does 
not promise a spade defeat — and its attendant 
50 or 100 honor points — there is no reason to 
suppose that my partner's hand will not beat 
the spade, provided third hand passes also. If 
third hand bids, every one at the table has 
another chance. I should rather have 50 points 
(or 100) than 6 points (or 12) even though the 
latter were below the line and the former above 
it. But — if those six points, or twelve points, 
would put me game — I should infinitely pre- 
fer them to the spade penalty. With 16 or 
18 on the score I should always bid "a club" 
against the dealer's "one spade"— if I held fair 
clubs. With nothing on the score I should 
certainly not bid "a club" against an opening 
spade. 

Every one, I think, agrees that fourth-hand 



132 Auction High-Lights 

should "pass a spade," unless he holds high 
honors, or sees a chance of game; but opinions 
vary as to whether second-hand should pursue 
the same course; many players think that 
second-hand should declare a fair holding in a 
minor suit (clubs or diamonds) even on a clean 
score; because, with this club or diamond 
information, the partner of second-hand may be 
enabled to declare an otherwise impossible no- 
trumper, and to take game. 

I see the force of this argument, and I have 
no wish to influence any player who prefers that 
method. But for myself, I utterly decline to bid 
against "a spade" — whether I sit second or 
fourth — unless my bid looks like game or carries 
high honors with it. I have seen too many 
good hundreds harvested by "passing a spade"; 
I have seen too many bids kept open — and the 
dealer given a much-desired chance to bid a long 
jack-suit or queen-suit, on the second round, 
simply by second-hand's obliging willingness to 
come to the rescue. It is delightfully easy to 
play against antagonists who are good enough 
to take you out of a spade- bid; whenever a 
difficult situation presents itself you can bid 
"a spade" with perfect safety — secure in the 
knowledge that some one will rush to the rescue. 
But \i you know that your chance of rescuers 



"Passing a Spade" 133 

is limited to one — i.e., your partner — you will 
have to wake up and assume your own re- 
sponsibilities. Give me adversaries who will 
bid against "a spade, " and a partner who won't, 
and I will be content. 



CHAPTER VIII 

EXPOSED CARDS 

So many inquiries come to me on the subject 
of " exposed' ' cards, so little explicit information 
concerning them seems to have been written, 
that, I am going to make them the text of this 
chapter. 

One correspondent writes me that " not even in 
Hoyle or the Century Dictionary' ' can he find 
just what he wants to know about the proper 
penalizing and playing of exposed cards. 

A card is " exposed' ' when its face is shown 
on, or above, the level of the table. But not all 
four players at a table suffer similarly for ex- 
posing a card. The Declarant, for instance, is 
absolutely immune from punishment, for the 
reason that he has no partner to be advantaged 
by seeing his cards; and Dummy, of course, is 
always exposed. It is the two persons who are 
playing against the deal who must be abnormally 
careful about showing cards. 

If \the Declarant shows a card it is supposed 
i34 



Exposed Cards 135 

to give information to two adversaries and to 
no partner — for the reason that the Declarant's 
partner is Dummy ("le mort," or "the dead 
man," as the French call him); therefore the 
Declarant suffers no further punishment than 
the fact that he has been foolish enough to let 
both his adversaries see his card, and to put them 
in the position where they can play accordingly. 
No card that the Declarant exposes, can be 
"called"; the only card that he can be forced 
to play from his own hand is one which he has 
voluntarily "quitted" (that is, from which he 
has voluntarily removed his fingers). He can 
throw his entire hand, face-up, on the table and 
play it from that position — if he is fool enough 
to want to do so. 

And, what is more, no one of those exposed 
cards can be called by either adversary. The 
Declarant is not at liberty to pick up a hand that 
he has thus thrown down, but he can play it 
from that position at his own discretion and with 
no other penalty than the fact that the adver- 
saries can take advantage of it. For that reason 
the Declarant alone is the one who can safely 
"claim the balance of the tricks" toward the 
close of a hand, and show down his remaining 
cards in support of his claim. Either adver- 
sary who does this runs the risk of being forced 



136 Auction HigH-LigHts 

to leave his cards on the table and being made 
to play them as the Declarant dictates ; they can 
all be " called' ' (at the Declarant's pleasure) 
and must be played as called, as, in this case, the 
Declarant can claim that the other adversary 
has been helped by seeing his partner's hand. 

While it is true that the Declarant has this 
tremendous license as far as the cards that he 
holds in his own hand are concerned — and that 
he can shove them out and push them back as 
much as he likes — it is not true concerning the 
cards that he plays from Dummy. A touched 
card in Dummy should always be a played card 
and can always be called by the adversaries. 

This rule is tremendously disregarded ; players 
will insist " I did n't take my fingers off " ; where 
that idea originated is a puzzle to me. It 
doesn't matter one iota whether or not you 
"take your fingers off"; the point is that you 
have put your fingers on. Having once done that 
in Dummy, the card is played; and having once 
relinquished a card from your own hand (if you 
are the Declarant) you must never take it back. 

The Declarant is at liberty to readjust 
Dummy cards if he preface the act with the 
words, "I arrange," or words to that effect; 
otherwise he must keep his fingers off them un- 
less he means to play them. It is an easy thing 



Exposed Cards 137 

to acquire the habit of keeping one's hand poised 
above the cards while making a difficult de- 
cision, rather than of allowing it to rest on any- 
one card. There is nothing I detest more than a 
person who touches a card in Dummy, meaning 
to play it, and then changes his mind and plays a 
different one. Yes, perhaps there is one person 
that is worse, and that is the person who turns 
over back tricks and looks at them. A trick 
that is once quitted should never be turned again 
till the end of the hand. Both these rules are 
constantly broken by careless players and by 
crafty ones, for the reason that no penalty is 
provided for the situation. 

A true sport realizes that it is worse to commit 
a breach of etiquette, where the adversary has 
no redress, than to break a rule where he can 
get even by taking a specified penalty. Some 
day, I hope, penalties will be provided for both 
these situations. 

But to return to our sheep — exposed cards 
by the adversaries of the Declarant are entirely 
at the Declarant's mercy. If either adversary 
shows a card so that the Declarant alone can 
see it, and by no physical possibility could the 
other adversary see it, that card is not " exposed " 
and cannot be called by the Declarant, even 
though he can name its face. He can take the 



138 Auction HigH-Lig'hts 

II 

advantage of having seen the card and can play 

accordingly; but he cannot "call" it. 

If, on the contrary, either adversary show a 
card on or above the level of the table so that 
his partner might have seen it (even though 
that partner vows that he did n't) that card 
is " exposed' ' and must be laid face-up on the 
table. The Declarant can call it and force its 
play, except to make its owner revoke with it. 
For instance, one adversary may " expose' ' 
the ace of clubs; he must then lay it on the table, 
face-up. His partner may lead the king of 
hearts, and the Declarant will "call" the club 
ace; its owner will reply, "No, I have a heart," 
and will play his heart. Then the partner 
may lead the ace of hearts, and again the Declar- 
ant will call the ace of clubs, which must be 
played unless its owner holds another heart. 
And the calling of this exposed card can be 
repeated until it is played. On the other hand, 
its owner is always at liberty to play it without 
waiting to have it called; and about this point 
there seems to be misunderstanding. You must 
play an exposed card when the Declarant calls 
it (except to revoke with it) but you may play 
it without waiting to have it called. In the 
case just given, where one adversary has exposed 
the ace of clubs, if the other adversary is wise 



Exposed Cards 139 

enough to lead a low club the owner of the ace 
is at liberty to play it, even though it is exposed, 
and is not called by the Declarant. 

In other words, the Declarant can force his 
adversary to play an exposed card, but not to 
retain it. 

Be very careful, in playing against the dec- 
laration, never to expose a card and never to 
claim "the balance of the tricks/ ' And be 
very careful, if you are the Declarant, not to 
touch one of Dummy's cards and fail to play 
it, and not to turn over tricks that have been 
quitted. For the last offense there is no law 
that will punish you, but you are committing 
a serious breach of sportsmanship and etiquette. 



CHAPTER IX 

THE TWO GREAT FLAWS OF THE AVERAGE GAME 

Auction possesses too attributes that were 
foreign to Bridge, — the bid, and the penalty- 
field. The over-appreciation of the first of 
these, and the under-appreciation of the second, 
form the two great flaws in the average game of 
Auction. 

No one fails to be impressed by the opportu- 
nities presented by the bid; no-one needs to 
be urged to take advantage of this privilege. 
There is scarcely one person in a hundred who 
does not over-bid. Players grip the bid between 
their teeth, and nothing will persuade them to 
relinquish it. They remind me of bull-dogs in 
the pertinacity of their hold. 

I have had pupils to whom I have refused 
to give another lesson, because nothing could 
persuade them to stop bidding; and, until they 
learned to stop, there was no hope for their 
game. They would die, bidding. Evidently 
they would rather lose hundreds by playing the 
hand, than make hundreds by defeating it. 

140 



Two Flaws of Average Game 141 

It is an attitude of mind that I cannot grasp. 
At first, I thought it excusable on the ground of 
novelty; it was so new and exciting to be able 
to play the hand — whether we dealt it or not, — 
that we could not forego the pleasure. But 
then, — it was also new and exciting to be able 
to score fifty a trick for defeating the bid! 
Fifty was an unheard-of trick- value in Bridge; 
the rubber, and four aces in one hand, were 
worth one hundred each. Five heart-honors 
in one hand counted eighty, and five diamond- 
honors sixty. And how often did such aces 
or such honors, come to us? Not once in a 
hundred deals; we gasped with joy when we 
held them, and we were entirely dependent on 
luck, for such holdings. Then, with Auction, 
came the chance of gathering in the fifties in 
bunches, on hands of scarcely more than average 
strength — on hands that we held frequently — 
and no one seemed to consider them worth a 
thought. 

My next idea was that proper instruction 
would certainly weed out this fault. And for 
three years I have talked, and taught, and 
written, — written, and taught, and talked, — 
till I have finally decided that there is one lesson 
the average player will never learn, and that is. 
the art of passing on good cards. 



142 Auction HigH-Lig'Hts 

" Learn to say no, ,, is considered a valuable 
lesson in life at large. I wish it could be more 
generally applied at the Auction table ! 

The object of Auction is not to play the most 
hands; it is to make the most you can, on your 
cards. Can you make more when you get fifty 
a trick, or when you get eight? 

I know the old objection, — the fifty is " above 
the line," and the eight is below it. What of 
that? The fifty points will be fifty cents to you, 
when you come to settle, — and the eight points 
will be eight cents, — it matters not where they are. 

Of course, the eight points will help you win 
the rubber, -and the fifty points will not. But 
the rubber itself is in that despised position, — 
above the line! It is only two hundred and fifty 
points above the line, — this wonderful Mecca of 
the average player. By paying proper atten- 
tion to the penalty-possibilities, it is often easy 
to lay up several hundreds and to discount 
the rubber itself. Take all the fifties, all the 
hundreds, that come your way. Choose game 
in preference to one hundred penalties, and 
rubber in preference to two hundred penalties. 
But take any penalties in preference to a partial 
game, and try to remember this point: 

Nothing in Auction offers you such valuable 
opportunities as the penalty-field! 



Two Flaws of Average Game 143 

A well-known financier has written me twice 
on this subject. If I were at liberty to quote his 
name, you would realize that what he says about 
figures, is final. And this is it : 

"It seems to me that the penalties are too 
great as the game is played. A man who bids 
'one heart' is betting six to one that he will 
make it; on a bid of 'one club/ he is betting 
eight to one; and on a bid of 'one spade,' he is 
betting twenty-five to one. 

"Again, the chances are almost three to one, 
against him, on a bid of ' three clubs ' ; they are 
two and a half to one, against him, on a bid of 
'three diamonds'; and they are two to one, 
against him, on a bid of 'three hearts.' And 
three-odd are rather difficult to make!" 

There it lies, you see, in actual figures! Yet 
players prefer to take the small chance, with the 
small profits, and have the "fun of playing the 
hand"; rather than take the greater chance, 
with the bigger profits, by defeating the make. 
And all because they are unduly impressed by a 
crossline on the score-card! 

When you play below the line you play with a 
specific object — to get 250 above the line. Now, 
if 250 above the line is such a valuable asset, 
why is 300 or 400 above the line less valuable? 

I do not mean to belittle the play of the hand. 



144 Auction HigH-Lig'Hts 

But there is no necessity for me to urge that 
on players who already over-do it. If you are 
driving a horse that pulls to the right, you bear 
on the left rein. And I find it very necessary 
to bear on this " penalty-rein. " 

I was playing, one day, with a partner who 
held a wonderful hand. He was "Z, " and I was 
" Y, " in the accompanying diagram : 



£J KJ9876 
4k 108 7 2 





10 3 








• » 






ty A Q 10 5 4 3 


Y 




<? — 


4k A 


A 


B 


4k K9 6543 


KQJ 






987542 


4 742 


Z 




• • 




^2 








* QJ 








A 6 








4k AKQJl 


0863 



It was a clean score, on the first game. 

My partner opened with "two royals," — 
being a preemptive bidder. The following 
adversary answered with " three hearts"; I 
passed, — from pleasure. B, also passed; and 



Two Flaws of Average Game 145 

my partner said " three royals." A answered 
with "four hearts," and I doubled, — both to 
keep my partner from making a royal-bid that 
could not possibly be as valuable as my double, — 
and because I did not believe any one could 
make five diamonds or six clubs. 

My partner was so impressed with his ninety 
honors, that he over-called my double with 
"four royals." 

One of my doubled tricks would have beaten his 
ninety honors; two of my doubled tricks would have 
beaten a grand slam in royals with ninety honors; 
and three of my doubled tricks would have beaten 
the rubber, itself. My tricks began to score by 
hundreds, as soon as we had taken in three; his 
tricks began to score, by nines, only after we had 
taken in six! 

Now, he had no possible chance of rubber, — as 
it was the first game. If he made a grand slam, 
he would score 63 for tricks, 40 for slam, and 
90 for honors; a total of 193 for thirteen tricks. 
And I could score 200 for five tricks. Of 
course, however, he would be game-in, on his 
grand slam, — if he made it ! 

As a matter of fact he made 27 points and 90 
honors, a total of 117 points on the hand; and 
not a game! He lost one heart-round, two 
clubs, and a diamond. 



146 Auction Hig'H-Lig'Hts 

Had I been allowed to play against the hearts, 
I should have led my singleton spade. My 
partner would have taken three spade-rounds; 
he could then have led a heart through the 
making-hand, or the jack of spades,— to permit 
me to over-trump. Let us suppose that he led 
the latter. A would hardly trump with his ace; 
if he did, I would discard. If he trumped with 
anything else, I could over-trump. I could 
then lead my short-suit (diamonds) in order to 
trump later. My partner could come in with 
the ace, and lead the ten of spades. 

I should have made 600 on that hand, and he 
chose to make 117. Do you call that good 
Auction? Why could he not have trusted my 
judgment? Certainly the "fun of playing the 
hand, " was not worth 483 points. 

Again, his 90 honors (with which he was so 
impressed) were "above the line," just as much 
as were my doubled tricks. Give me six hundred 
points on one hand, and I will give you the 
rubber on the next two hands, and will be 
extremely happy to call it square! The more 
I play Auction, the more I watch others play it, 
the more firmly am I convinced of this; that, 
while good playing is not infrequent, good 
bidding is extremely rare; good doubling is 
almost never found (in the average run of 



Two Flaws of Average Game 147 

players) and good passing is an art that has yet 
to be acquired. 

Here are some conspicuous mistakes which I 
have recently seen made by persons who have 
the reputation of playing a game that is well 
above the average ; in no case did the score make 
any unusual demands upon either side. 

The dealer, Z, declared "a royal"; second 
hand, A, considered his hand "too good to 
pass," so bid "two clubs," on this combination: 

9 A98 
4» KQ97 
A3 

4 9876 

That was distinctly bad. A, not being 
forced to bid, should have passed. His hand 
made it probable that Z could not have taken 
game in royals — for the score was love-all. If Z 
got the bid at "one royal," A should have led 
his ace of diamonds, if his partner gave a "come- 
on" card (showing the king) A should have led 
again, and been ready to ruff the third round. 
Or, his first lead might have been the king of 
clubs — "from two honors that touch. " 

Any dealer holding A's hand should open with 
"a no-trump," because his bid is then forced. 



148 Auction Hig'h-Li^Hts 

The hand holds but one unprotected suit, and is 
three points above the average; it holds two 
aces and two nines, instead of one ace, one jack, 
one ten, and one nine. It would make an 
excellent opening no-trumper. But the mo- 
ment Z bid royals A's no-trump bid was killed 
—in that he held no royal stopper. He should 
certainly have passed. 

Had A been using the high-spade bids he 
could have bid "five spades"; this would have 
said to his partner; "I have a no-trumper, ex- 
cept that I do not stop the adversary's suit. M 
And then there would have been woe! For B 
would have been forced to respond to his partner's 
"call," he would have had to bid two in some- 
thing — and this was what he held: 

J63 

Jf* 8652 

K964 

4 32 

Here is another hand which caused numerous 
mistakes; it is a clean score: 



Two Flaws of Average Game 149 





tf 


J532 






* 


54 









A932 






♦ 


A32 




V Q 




Y 


^7 10 7 6 


4* KJ108 32 


A 


B 


* 6 


QJ8 


<> K 10 7 


i 10 8 4 




Z 


4 KJ9765 




V 


AK9 84 






* 


AQ9 7 









654 






♦ 


Q 





Z opened with "a heart,' ' which is obviously 
correct. A bid "two clubs" which, of course, is 
equally correct. 

Y made the mistake of passing; he should 
have said " two hearts. " It is almost (not quite) 
as bad to pass when you should bid, as to bid 
when you should pass. Y had a trump trick 
in his guarded jack; the fact that he held four 
trumps to an honor in his partner's suit made it 
very improbable that Z-Y had many hearts. 
And, in addition to this trick, Y had two 
"raisers" — his two aces. He could have said 
"two hearts" and "three hearts" without an- 
other bid from Z. It was Y's distinct duty to 



150 Auction HigH-Lig'Hts 



announce those raisers ; otherwise Z would think 
that his partner had no help for him and would 
be debarred from a perfectly sound bid. How- 
ever, Y passed. 

B over-called with "two royals" — most 
properly. He held the highest of all the suits, 
and his partner held the lowest. The highest 
should certainly be the trump, and the lowest 
the side-suit. Moreover, B held a singleton in 
his partner's suit ; he had everything to make th 
over-call necessary. 

Z was correct in passing after the "tw« 
royals." His partner had failed to raise his 
hearts, and Z's own hand held seven losers — 
for the queen of clubs would rank as a loser with 
the clubs bid on her left; one spade, three 
diamonds, and three clubs made seven losing 
tricks, even if every one of Z's hearts took. I 
know players who insist that " a singleton is not a 
loser"; unless it is a singleton ace it is almost 
positively a loser. How many singletons (not 
aces) take tricks? A singleton strengthens 
one's hand in declared trumps; and after one 
round the suit is safe. But the singleton must 
first lose. 

Then A did a preposterous thing! He over- 
called the "two royals" with " three clubs." 
This was equivalent to saying that he held no 






Two Flaws of Average Game 151 

royals at all and that he had wonderful clubs. 
You can see for yourself whether that was 
legitimate information. A held three spades to 
an honor; a singleton heart which promised a 
beautiful chance for a ruff (and A's trumps were 
just the kind to use in ruffing) and his clubs were 
certainly not worth the prominence he gave 
them. 

Y passed. He was evidently a man who had 
learned to say "no. " That, as I said before, is a 
good principle, — but it can be overdone! 

B did not over-call again. Suppose the ace- 
queen of spades lay with Z! Or suppose they 
lay with Y, and A had not one spade with which 
to lead through them. 

A had practically denied spades. B's spades 
were a deadly combination from which to lead 
away and make three-odd. 

Z doubled the "three clubs"; it seems im- 
possible, but it actually happened. In the first 
place he sat on the wrong side of the club-bid. 
Then, if Z could n't play hearts, he certainly 
wanted to play clubs; he expected to take the 
odd or he would n't have doubled. Why, then, 
should he give B a chance to go back to royals? 
By passing Z would have closed the bid at "three 
clubs," just where he thought he wanted it. 
But he doubled and kept it open. 



152 Auction High-Lights 

A passed; Y passed; and B, of course, said 
"three royals." Z and A passed, and Y— the 
man who went to sleep at his post— passed, too. 
As Y I should certainly have tried ''three no- 
trumps/ ' after my partner's club-double. Of 
course a double does not always mean trump- 
strength— but Z's double must have meant 
clubs; he wouldn't double on hearts alone; he 
hadn't the ace of either diamonds or spades 
(because Y had them both) ; and it was only after 
a two-bid that he doubled. If the bid had been 
three or four Z might have been doubling on 
general strength; but to double a two-bid is apt 
to mean that you have at least a stopper in the 
suit you double. 

If Y played " three no-trumps" it would be an 
intensely interesting hand— the discards on the 
hearts would call for much skill. B would lead a 
club to his partner's bid. Y could pass it and 
force A to lead spades up to Dummy's queen 
(thus getting A's ten and B's king on the same 
trick) or he could take the first club-round with 
the ace. I should choose that course, because 
clubs would still be protected. Then I should 
lead the king of hearts— a small heart to the 
jack — and another back into the long heart hand. 
The discards would seriously cripple A-B. 

Y would be set for one trick. He could take 



Two Flaws of Averag'e Game 153 

two-odd, but not three. Thus he would lose 50 
undoubled, or 100 doubled, and would have 40 
aces to offset it. Not a very heavy loss. At 
royals B went game — although, he should not 
have done so. Z did not put up his ace of clubs 
on the first round. B did not finesse his jack on 
the first round of trumps, but put up his king 
and caught the lone queen from Z. Thus, his 
losses were confined to the aces of diamonds and 
spades, and the king of hearts. A-B made 36 
points plus 18 honors, and were " game-in' ' 
(and a game is equivalent to 125 honors — because 
two games are worth 250 honors) . By taking the 
bid Y would have held his two losses down to 60 
points at the most — 100 minus 40. 

Try to think of penalties as well as of points. 
Try to stop bidding when you have a chance to 
defeat. As soon as the bid gets to two, in any- 
thing, look to see whether you can beat it, before 
you over-bid it. If the other side bids in the 
only suit that you can defeat, — pass! Don't 
double and give them a chance to shift; don't 
over-call and give them a chance to beat you. 
Just pass. If they make a bid that you are sure 
of defeating, and if the bid is so high, or your 
hand has such general strength, that you can 
defeat any other bid they make, — then double. 
That is your great chance. 



154 Auction HigH-LigHts 

There is small satisfaction in doubling a man 
and seeing him step out onto safe ground. There 
is great satisfaction in doubling him when he 
cannot possibly escape. 

Please give this doubling system a fair trial, 
and see if you ever want to go back to your 
old, haphazard happy-go-lucky doubles. And 
please try to think of penalties, and see if they 
do not reward you for your pains ! 

If the other man wants to beat himself, let 
him; if he insists upon over-bidding, take the 
profits he offers you instead of capping his 
unsound bid with a similar one of your own. If 
he is sufficiently unfortunate to hold all the poor 
cards at a time when he is forced to bid, take 
ioo by letting him play the hand instead of 
taking 1 6 or 1 8 by playing it yourself. 



CHAPTER X 

ON RULES 

If I should begin this chapter by saying "all 
rules, save one, were made to break, " you would 
probably be tempted to wonder why, under those 
circumstances, I have been so insistent regarding 
them. The facts are these: No one can afford 
to take the slightest liberty with any rule until 
he is an expert; when he is an expert he will 
probably know the rules thoroughly; and when 
he knows them, he will not want to break them 
except in one case out of a hundred. 

The rules were made to cover ninety-nine 
cases out of every hundred, and they do. Occa- 
sionally the hundredth case arrives, but it takes 
an expert to recognize it. And any one else who 
tries it will come to grief and drag his partner 
with him. 

The idea of playing "from your own head" 
would be all right if you had no partner or if all 
heads were exactly alike and took precisely the 
same view of every situation. As neither of 

i55 



156 Auction High-Lights 

these premises is correct the practice stands 
condemned. 

There is a huge difference between the player 
who breaks a rule upon rare occasions — but who 
does so intelligently, opportunely, and with a 
purpose — and the one who ignorantly breaks a 
rule every time he plays a card. One is like a 
person who speaks perfect English but who 
occasionally descends to slang, or bad English, 
in order to put a point on a story ; and the other 
is like a person who murders the King's English 
every time he opens his mouth — and does n't 
even know he is doing it. 

Stick religiously to the rules until you become 
expert (not in your own eyes, but in the eyes of 
all who play with you) and then continue to 
stick to them, unless the situation is very un- 
usual and demands special handling. Then 
handle it accordingly. There is just one rule 
that I should never trifle with under any cir- 
cumstances, and that is " never bid no- rump 
unless you stop the adversary's suit.'" The man 
who breaks that rule walks on very dangerous 
ground. 

Please don't forget all that I have said about 
the " ninety-nine cases" and remember only the 
hundredth, and please don't think that the 
latter has arrived every time you are tempted to 



On Rules 157 

do something unusual. Play the game just as 
conservatively and just as well as you possibly 
can; but if an occasion arises where, after having 
looked carefully at every side of the case, an 
irregular course seems to be the best, — then 
take that course. In other words, break a rule 
when the issue is more important than the rule ! 
But don't break any rule lightly, carelessly, 
ignorantly, or selfishly. They are good old 
rules — better friends than outsiders even guess — 
and I hate to see them set aside, if only for a 
moment. 

A wooden player is never a brilliant one; but 
there are many brilliant players who are thor- 
oughly unsafe. Where their "brilliancy" pays 
once, it will miscarry three times. 

Just notice one thing and see if I am not right. 
The man who constantly takes unwarranted 
liberties himself, is the man who demands the 
most unswerving conservatism from his partners. 
He is a spoiled child, nothing more. And it 
takes all the conservatism that those partners 
can possibly exercise to make a good average 
with his "brilliancy." 

I know, of course, hundreds of players who 
break rules ignorantly or selfishly. I know 
numbers of players who never break a rule. 
Having learned their rules thoroughly, it never 



158 Auction HigH-Lig'Hts 

occurs to them that an occasion might arise 
which would admit of original handling. Such 
players are wonderful disciples and followers; 
they could never be leaders. They make 
absolutely satisfactory partners in ninety-nine 
cases out of a hundred. When that hundredth 
time comes, you are apt to fume inwardly at 
their limited vision and their want of spirit . But 
remember this, perfection is hard to find, in a 
partner as in anything else; and there is no 
question which is better, — the partner who 
never breaks a rule, or the partner who generally 
breaks one. Take the former whenever you 
can get him, and be thankful for your luck! 



CHAPTER XI 

SYSTEMS 

When four players of equal skill are playing 
together, the victory goes to the two partners 
who hold the best cards. Skill means the ability 
to manage given cards to the best possible 
advantage, to give reliable information by your 
bids and leads, to locate the cards in the closed 
hands, to read all signals, to lay traps for the 
adversary, to avoid all traps he may lay for you, 
and to judge properly between possible methods 
of play. But presupposing equal skill — the 
cards decide the victory ; not "bluff," not signals, 
not conventions nor "calls" — just cards. If 
private conventions were honorable they would 
naturally advantage their users; when under- 
stood equally by all four players they spread 
their advantages equally. It is impossible to 
"push your luck" by the multiplication of 
conventions. After you have brought your 
game to the highest point of skill of which you 
are capable, the cards are the arbiters of your 

i59 



160 Auction High-Lights 

fate. If any one doubts the ability of cards to 
bring victory, let him look for a moment on the 
wretched players who bring home prizes from 
card-parties. 

Study your game; practice your game; play 
your game. Then study, practice, and play 
again, ad infinitum, and you will have done 
all in your power. After that, luck decides it. 
No "sy stems' ' based on mathematical chances 
of possibility, no permutation of combinations, 
no complicated conventions, will aid you in the 
least. The simpler you keep the game the better 
for it and for you. 

Take this assurance from me — no artificial aids 
in the shape of "conventions" will solve your 
difficulties ; they will but add to your burdens if 
you are inexpert ; and, if you are expert, I cannot 
see why you need them. They may suit your 
taste and you may like them, but you cannot 
possibly need them, in the sense that they are 
indispensable to a high-grade game. And my 
idea of the perfect game is the one that is shorn 
of all superfluities, and that retains the fewest 
set conventions as are compatible with perfect 
mutual understanding. 

I have just been listening to some arguments 
in favor of a new system of bidding; this system 
is said to be based on mathematical possibilities ; 



Systems 161 

according to it you may break all known laws — 
you may bid on jack-suits and ten-suits, ''be- 
cause there is an even chance of luck being with 
you or against you. " 

I do not predict much vogue for a system 
based on such ideas; its flaws are apparent at a 
glance. The present laws are made to protect 
players in nine cases out of ten — not in five out 
of ten. They would not be worth much if they 
afforded no better protection than that ! What 
would you think of a lawyer, or a physician, who 
lost 50 per cent, of his cases? What college 
would pass a student whose examination averages 
were no higher than 50 per cent.? 

Moreover, a thing which works beautifully in 
theory may fail utterly in practice. It may fail 
repeatedly. It is possible to work out a most 
exact theory of mathematical chances and to 
lose every dollar you own when you put it to the 
test. If this were not true, there would be 
fewer suicides at Monte Carlo. 

The school of bidding for which I stand is 
eminently conservative; it depends less upon 
luck than any other system I have ever heard 
exploited. Plunging is eliminated, strict atten- 
tion is paid to losses as well as to winnings, no bid 
is ever one point in excess of absolute necessity, 
and no heavy obligations are imposed on the 



162 Auction Hig'H-Lig'Hts 






partner of the bidder. When your cards are 
good you can win as much by this game as by 
any other; when they are bad, no system that I 
have ever known will limit your losses as success- 
fully. And that last point is absolutely essential 
— to keep your losses down when luck is against 
you. Any one can win when he has all the 
material. I have always been a proverbially 
"poor holder. " I am confident that I owe my 
card-success to this fact; I am a better player 
and teacher than I could possibly have been 
otherwise. Not having grown used to luck, I 
don't expect it and don't depend on it. I have 
learned to do without it and to discount it. I 
accept and foster no theories that depend upon 
luck (one's own luck, or one's partner's) — to 
put them through. I see immediately the 
flaws in such systems when they are offered to 
me. They may be very brilliant when the 
necessary luck attends them, but nothing can 
blind my eyes to the certain fiascos that await 
them when luck fails. And it is bound to fail 
often! If you do not depend on luck, you are 
not turned topsy-turvy by its non-appearance. 

When luck is good, the success of the Conser- 
vative is as brilliant as any other; when luck is 
poor, it is infinitely more so! 



CHAPTER XII 



THIRTY-SIX TEST-HANDS 



For something over two years, I have been 
the Auction-expert of The New York Times. 
The paper has an enormous circulation and my 
articles have therefore been read in most parts of 
the English-speaking world. Readers have sent 
me interesting hands that they have held, and 
these hands have been discussed in the columns 
of The Times, by other readers and by me. 

I have selected certain of these hands that 
excited the greatest interest amongst my readers. 
Every hand given here is an actual hand, and has 
been legitimately dealt in a real game. 

Test-Hand No. i 

I received this enthralling hand from a corre- 
spondent in Northampton, with a request that I 
should dissect it. Every one to whom I showed 
the hand, found it interesting beyond words; 
unfortunately, the score is not given. 

163 



1 64 



Auction HigH-LigHts 





9 


A K J 10 7 2 






* 


96 



















♦ 


Q 10 9 8 3 


tf 




9 




Y 


Q8 


£ K85432 


A 


B 


« 


AQ10 


A98754 









K Q J 10 6 2 


♦ a 




Z 


* 


K4 




9 


96543 






* 


J7 











3 








* 


A J752 







It was before the advent of "nullos," and the 
original bidding ran thus : 
Z, ' 'one royal/ ' 

A, "two diamonds." 
Y, "two royals." 

B, " three diamonds. " 
Z, "three royals." 

A, "four diamonds." 
Y, "four royals." 

B, "four no-trumps. " 
Z, "double." 

Result — six-odd, for B, in doubled "no- 
trumps." 

And the question I was specially asked to 



XKirty-Six Test-Hands 165 

decide was whether Y was correct in his first- 
round raise to "two-royals," or whether he 
should have said "two hearts. " 

Z would have a beautiful "nullo"-bid; in fact 
any one of the four players, except B, would be 
perfectly able to play "nullos. " Y would be 
foolish to do it, holding sixty-four heart-honors; 
and his spades look a bit menacing. However, 
by throwing his ace and queen on the same trick 
(and allowing B to throw his king, even), Z 
could play the deuce and the trey on the second- 
round, and force B to take with the four. And 
then no one could lead them to him again. 

Failing "nullos," I think Z's opening-bid was 
certainly correct. He has a seven-point royal- 
suit, running to the ace-jack, and a side-singleton 
that makes his little trump look promising for a 
ruff. There are those who demand ace-king for 
an original make; but not many players will 
agree with that. Such a system would either 
force one back to unnecessary spade-declarations, 
or would have its inevitable attendant in the 
shape of a complicated table of "calls, " provided 
for hands that did not hold a "make. " We will 
certainly allow Z to open with " a royal. " 

A's bid of "two diamonds," was also correct. 
He has a blank suit, a singleton, and six trumps 
to the ace (yet he, too, lacks ace-king; just see 



166 Auction Hig'h-Lis'Hts 

where you would land, if you always waited for 
that). 

Y's raise to "two royals" could not be criti- 
cized; he has five trumps to two honors, a 
splendid side-suit, and is blank in the adver- 
sary's suit. Nevertheless, I should rather hear 
him say "two hearts, " on account of those sixty- 
four honors. You remember I have always 
urged you to raise your partner's suit, rather 
than to show your own, "unless your suit is 
better than his and will enable you to go game 
in fewer tricks — or unless you have wonderful 
honors in one of the high suits." Y has just 
that — "wonderful honors in one of the high 
suits." Those sixty-four points are something 
that no one can steal from him, if hearts are 
trumps. 

Y's own hand precludes the possibility of Z 
holding more than eighteen royal-honors; how- 
ever, Z and Y together might easily hold forty- 
five honors, and Y's raising-hand in royals is 
wonderful. I prefer the bid of "two hearts," 
but I insist that the "two royals" is above fair 
criticism. 

B's " no-trump"-bid is very poor. He has a 
mere stopper in spades, and it lies on the wrong 
side of the original royal-bid ; he knows nothing of 
hearts, except that he himself is deplorably weak 






THirty-Six Test-Hands 167 

in them, and his clubs promise but two tricks at 
the outside. 

Had Y bid hearts, B would never have de- 
clared " no-trumps"; even failing the heart-bid, 
B's " no-trump" -bid is extremely poor. 

But poor as it is, Z's double is infinitely worse. 
On what could Z double? He holds a very much 
broken five-card spade-suit, poor hearts, poor 
clubs, and a singleton in the suit in which both 
adversaries have shown strength. I cannot 
conceive of such a double. 

There are those, I know, who double every 
high bid "on general principles. " Such doubles 
are inexcusable. Plenty of three-bids and four- 
bids — yes, and even five-bids — go through 
beautifully. And "a poor double is worse than 
a poor bid." 

Granting that B has his "four no-trumps" and 
that Z has doubled, it depends entirely upon Z's 
lead whether A-B make a small slam, or whether 
Z-Y take eleven tricks and defeat the bid to the 
tune of 800 points. 

Z should never lead his suit (spades) up to a 
declared stopper; that would be to allow B to 
come in on the first round, or the second, and to 
make every one of his long suit on which he has 
been bidding. He would make a small slam; 
coming in on the first, or the second round of 



168 Auction HigH-LigHts 

spades, he would lead a small diamond to 
Dummy's ace, and another into his own hand. 
After making all his diamonds, he would lead his 
ace and queen of clubs, — then his ten, which he 
would over-take with Dummy's king, and make 
all of Dummy's clubs. There would never be a 
heart-lead. 

Again, it is equally obvious that Z should 
never lead a diamond. His object should be to 
put his partner in, so that Y may lead spades 
through the declared stopper. The natural in- 
ference would be that Y might be strong where 
his partner is weak. Z is horribly weak in both 
clubs and hearts, and knows absolutely nothing 
of either suit. 

I cannot see that there is a shade of difference 
in favor of either the heart-lead, or the club- 
lead, as far as Z is concerned. After seeing a 
hand open it is easy to ''play results," and to 
squeeze up reasons for doing the thing that is 
obviously the one that brings in the winnings. 
But holding Z's hand, knowing nothing of the 
other hands, and presupposing the bidding to 
have been what it was, I cannot see anything to 
determine Z's choice of lead — between the club 
and the heart. 

If he chooses the heart, he is gloriously vic- 
torious; if he chooses the club, he is ruinously 






THirty-Six Test-Hands 



169 



defeated. And neither one is " right' ' nor 
"wrong," as far as his hand is concerned. His 
choice is purely and simply luck. 

The hand is interesting to the last degree. 

Test-Hand No. 2 



This hand was sent me from Nassau, Baha- 
mas, where it was played by four expert players. 
The score was game-all. 

V 64 

<fr A Q J 10 9 7 

AKQJ9 



<? J973 




Y 




9 


4» K32 


A 




B 


4* 64 


<> 53 








8762 


4 AKQJ 




Z 




4fc 987543 



£? A KQ 10 85 2 

£ 85 

<C> 104 

4b 10 6 

Actual bidding ran thus : 

Z, "two hearts." (I don't like the preemptive 
bid, on general principles. This time, of course, 



170 Auction HigH-Lights 

it does no harm. And yet Z holds six sure 
losers and might later be very glad of some of the 
very suit-information that he is doing his best 
to kill.) 

A, "two royals. " (Two is a high bid on a 
four-card suit, but the 72 honors excuse it. You 
see the preemptive bid did not preempt.) 

Y, "three clubs." 

B, "three royals" (on his blank suit and 
seven trumps). 

Z "four hearts." 

A, "double." (I don't like that. His jack 
of trumps is his only sure trick. I don't see 
where he expected to get his three others. The 
king of clubs is on the wrong side of the bid, 
and there is very small hope of his making a 
third round of spades, with hearts as trumps. It 
is always necessary to remember that one adver- 
sary or the other may do some ruffing.) 

Z, "five diamonds." 

B,"by." 

Z, "five hearts." 

A, " double." (If I were playing against a good 
player and doubled his four-bid, and if, on top of 
that double, he made a five-bid in the same suit, 
— I should certainly let him alone. I should 
feel sure he knew what he was about.) 

YandB, "by." 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 171 

Z, "redouble." Closed. 

The result was that Z made his contract. I 
do not see how he could possibly fail to make a 
small slam. The first lead would have been a 
spade, I should think; Z would ruff in Dummy, 
lead the nine of diamonds, overtake with his 
own ten, and lead another spade which Dummy 
would ruff. A could take one trump-trick and 
nothing else. B could take nothing. 

However, Z made five tricks worth 32 apiece; 
100 for contract; 64 honors less chicane; and 
rubber, a total of 558 on the hand. If Z had 
made his small slam, it would have counted, in 
addition: one trick at 32 points, 20 for slam, 
and 100 for extra trick, a total of 710 points on 
the hand. 

I do not think any of the original bidding 
is open to real criticism. The hands were 
closed, and that makes a great difference; and 
I think that most players — even most very 
excellent players — would have bid and doubled 
as those four players did. But, as I have said, 
I am extremely conservative. And I merely 
want to show you that by following the maxims 
I have constantly laid down, A could certainly 
have prevented his opponents from achieving 
such a remarkable victory. 

Look at the nullo-possibilities in that hand 



172 Auction Hig'H-Lig'Hts 

for A-B ! If A kept throwing the lead to Y, the 
latter could never lead a spade. 

Test-Hand No. 3 

{From New York City) 

The score on this was 21-0, in favor of A-B. 
It was therefore advisable that A-B should be 
conservative. 





£> 74 

4k 975 

Q7632 
4 854 




^ Q10 6 3 
4* 63 
<5 AK54 
4 K62 


Y 
A B 

Z 


£3 9852 
4k K10 8 2 
8 
^ J973 




^ AKJ 
4» AQJ4 
J 10 9 
4 AQ10 





Original bids ran as follows: 

Z, "one no-trump." 

A, "by." 

Y, "two diamonds." (Correct; an over-call of 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 173 

danger, on five cards to an honor, and an other- 
wise blank hand.) 

B,"by." 

Z, "two no-trumps." 

A, " double. " (That is the first mistake; it was 
done for the purpose of frightening Y back to 
diamonds, and Y refused to go. Bluffs will not 
often work with the best players.) 

YandB, "by." 

Z, "redouble." (You see the result of the 
bluff double. Z was not afraid of any jump that 
A might make. Nevertheless, as Z, I should 
have passed and closed the bidding. Two no- 
trumps doubled and scored would have been 
rubber; and Z was practically sure of making it. 
By allowing A to bid again, Z might be able to 
defeat him, but he positively could not take rubber 
on A 's bid. He should have closed the bidding 
where it meant a sure rubber for him.) 

A, "three hearts." (That is an awful bid; 
yet it is A's one chance of saving rubber. It is a 
bid he would never have made unless he had 
been frightened into it. He had no reason to 
expect four trumps in his partner's hand. Still, 
A's bluff double had imperiled the rubber, and 
he had to do what he could.) 

YandB, "by." 

Z, "double." Closed- 



174 Auction Hi£h-Lights 

On the play, A lost 200 points. That was bad, 
but it was better than losing rubber. Had Z 
closed the bidding on the "two no-trumps" 
doubled (instead of redoubling), he would have 
scored 250 for rubber, 30 for aces, and either 40 
or 60 for tricks (according to play). And he 
would have closed the rubber. By redoubling, he 
gave A the bid, kept the rubber open, and al- 
lowed A-B another chance to recoup their losses. 

If A had passed the "two no-trumps'' there is 
scarcely a chance that Z would have taken 
game, because he would have been constantly 
inconvenienced by leading away from his strong 
hand. If the first lead were a low diamond, it is 
highly improbable that (on a closed hand) Z 
would put up Dummy's queen. If he did so 
play, he could take game, because he could 
finesse the clubs properly — from the weak hand 
to the strong. But Z would have no reason to 
think that the queen would take the trick. He 
could not possibly tell that both the ace and the 
king lay with A. The rule of eleven would show 
him that B held one diamond higher than the 
four-spot; it might easily be the ace, or the king. 

If nullos were used, B could easily extricate 
his partner from the "three hearts," doubled. 
He could bid "four nullos" and make them; he 
could make more! Z could never allow nullos 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 



175 



to be played — his high cards would mean a sure 
rubber for A-B; he would have to go up in 
no-trumps, and be set. 

Test-Hand No. 4 

This hand came from the Military Club, 
London; it is the rubber-game, and the score is 
8-6 in favor of A-B. 

£> 9864 
4» 105 4 3 
7 
4 9853 



9 532 




Y 




tf A 


* A 


A 




B 


Jh J876 


KQ10852 








9643 


4 A42 




Z 




4* QJ106 



ty KQJ10 7 
4k KQ92 
O AJ 

4fc K7 

Actual bidding ran: Z, "a. heart"; A, "two 
diamonds"; Y, "two hearts"; B, "three dia- 
monds"^, "three hearts"; A, " four diamonds " ; 
Z, "double"; A, "redouble," and took rubber. 

Y's raise was certainly light; still, he holds a 



176 



Auction HigH-Lights 



side-singleton and four small trumps. To save 
rubber I should have made the raise; otherwise, 
I should let Z do his own raising. And, as Z, 
I should never have doubled four diamonds. 
Nor, as Y, would I have redoubled, for fear Z 
would have returned to hearts; without the 
redouble it meant rubber anyhow, and that was 
enough. 

Test-Hand No. q 



This came from Brookline, and caused great 
interest. 

A-B are one game in, and it is the first hand 
on the second game. 



tf 




* 


AK J962 





AK10 9 8 


* 


AK 



^7 9865432 


Y 




<V? AKQJ107 


$» 75 


A 


B 


4* Q 10 8 


54 






QJ 


* 52 


Z 




* QJ 




9 — 








£ 43 






7632 






4 10 9876' 


13 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 177 

The original bidding was : 

Z, "a spade" (Z would have had a wonderful 
nullo-bid, — but his partner would never have 
permitted him to play it); A, "no"; Y, "a no- 
trump"; B, "two hearts"; Z, "two royals"; 
A, "three hearts"; Y, "three royals"; B, "four 
hearts"; Y, "double"; Z, "four royals"; closed. 

Z-Y made grand slam in royals, and would 
have scored 252 net in honor column at 4 hearts 
doubled. 

I do not like that first " no-trump " from Y — 
with a blank suit. He has his choice between 
clubs and diamonds; I should choose the former, 
because it is longer; the extra trump will be 
useful in ruffing hearts, and it takes five-odd in 
either for game. 

B should bid "one heart," and Z "one royal," 
on seven trumps and a blank suit. A royal-call 
of "four spades" would not have helped Z in the 
least; if Y has no legitimate bid with which to 
keep the bidding open — a ten-high suit is no 
advantage; and if Y does keep the bidding open, 
Z can bid his own royals on the second round. 
The "call" is useless. 

A should never raise hearts — you "must not 
raise on trumps alone" — you must have side- 
suits, singletons, or blank suits. A has none. 
What good is it to hold all thirteen trumps if the 



178 Auction High-LigHts 

other side hold all three plain suits, and if you 
cannot ruff those suits? You simply "can't 
get in. ,, 

B should not bid his hearts higher than two, 
failing a raise from A. Even his 80 honors 
should not tempt him. He has six losing cards; 
if he gets doubled and loses a couple of hundreds, 
of what use will his 80 be? 

It is not much good to hold all thirteen trumps 
(divided between the two hands) , if all the suit- 
cards are held against you, and if you have no 
singletons or blank suits. The adversaries, not 
you, will lead. They will lead side-suit, — not 
trumps. And you will lose all your side-tricks 
before you ever get in. 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 

Test-Hand No. 6 



179 



The score on this hand was 18-0 on the 
rubber-game, in favor of A-B. 





^? K2 






4» 643 




1 


6 Q?2 






djk A9542 




$10 7 5 


Y 


$ QJ9 


4$ A J 10 9 5 


A B 


4k K 


A853 




J 10 9 


* 10 


Z 


^ KQJ876 


( 


£? A8643 




1 


* Q 87 2 




i 


6 K64 




i 


*3 




The original bic 


Iding does not meet with my 


unqualified appro^ 


ra,l, but this 


is how it ran : 


Z, "nullo." 






A, "two clubs.' 






Y, "two nullos. 


>> 




B, "two royals. 


»> 




Z, "three nullos 


>> 




AandY, "no." 






B, "three royals 


5." 





180 Auction HigH-Lig'Hts 

Z, "no." (I should have said four nullos, to 
the score.) 

A, "no." 

Y, "double. " (I don't like his position.) 

B , " redouble. ' ' (A mistake ; if he expected to 
make it, he should have passed and taken rubber 
■ — instead of giving the adversaries another 
chance.) 

Z, "four nullos.' ' Closed. 

A's choice of lead is interesting. The original 
A led his five of diamonds ; that is not wrong, but 
he has better leads in his hand. I should have 
led the ten of spades. The bidding had shown 
that his partner had high spades which were 
bound to take. By leading the ten, A could get 
later discards; he could discard the ace of dia- 
monds, and some clubs, — or even the eight of 
diamonds. 

This hand shows the weakness of leading high 
cards; suppose A leads his diamond ace, "be- 
cause it has to take sometime, and may as well 
do it first as last." Immediately, Z will throw 
his king from one hand, and his queen from the 
other. 

If A leads the ten of spades, Z will suspect it 
is a singleton. B's high bidding in spades, 
Dummy's long spades, and A's choice of lead 
will mark its object. Z can take with Dummy's 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 181 

ace, — to prevent A's discards ; or he can play the 
nine, in order to get the suit led again, and to 
get discards in his own hand. That would be my 
course; and Z's first discard should be the club 
queen ; it is far more dangerous than the king of 
diamonds (because the king and queen can fall 
together), or than the ace of hearts (because the 
king would take a heart round, even if the ace 
were thrown) . 

B will over-take his partner's ten of spades, 
with the king, and will lead the queen. Z will 
throw the queen of clubs and A the ace of 
diamonds. Dummy should take with the spade 
ace; then he should lead the king of hearts, — 
over-taking with the ace ; and then the king of 
diamonds, throwing the queen. He does n't take 
another trick, and he goes rubber. 

It is interesting to note that if zae five and 
deuce of clubs were reversed, — or the five and 
trey, — the bid would be set. A could take the 
first club-round — playing his ace on his partner's 
king, — and he could then lead his deuce and 
force a club-round on Z. It is as useful to hold 
the deuce of the adversary's suit, when playing 
nullos, as to hold the ace of his suit, when playing 
no-trumps. 

It has frequently been proposed that the 
original nullo-bidder should be the Dummy, in- 



182 Auction HigH-LigHts 

stead of the player. This- would reverse the 
general order of things, would still further carry 
out the negation of nullos, would expose the real 
nullo-hand on the table, would prevent the ex- 
posure of dangerous strength in the assisting- 
hand, and would permit nullos to be bid much 
more frequently. But I think its disadvantages 
are very great; when I bid nullos, I want to be 
able to play them ; I have a scheme in my head 
that might not occur to my partner. Moreover, 
I do not think the general order of things should 
be so radically upset, nor do I think that we 
want nullos too constantly. We want to have 
them, ready and waiting, when the right combin- 
ation of cards and circumstances arises, but not 
to force them unduly. 

By remembering the folly of bidding " a nullo " 
over a partner's " spade, " and by paying strict 
attention to over-calls, and non-raises, the danger 
of strong exposed Dummy-hands can generally 
bs avoided. 

Test-Hand No. 7 

This is one of the most remarkable hands I 
have ever seen. It was sent me from New York 
City. It was the first hand of the rubber-game, 
and the cards lay thus : 






THirty-Six Test-Hands 



183 



v — 



10 7 4 



AKQJ 10 98753 



<0 



J 10 987654 

32 
5 
42 




^7 KQJ986532 

* 

AJ2 



4> AKQ 

KQ10987643 

* — 

Z opened the bidding with "a diamond," 
which was obviously correct. 

A made the mistake of bidding "two clubs," 
which would have been proper on the second 
round, but not on the first. Jack-bids are 
barred on the first round. I do not say that A 
could not make two-odd in clubs, under most 
circumstances, but I do say that he misinformed 
his partner. His bid (being made on the first 
round) announced that he held "a playable suit, 
headed by the ace, the king, or (possibly) the 
queen. " His partner, relying on this informa- 
tion, might be led far astray in future doubles and 
bids. A was not forced to bid, and should 
certainly have passed. 



1 84 Auction HigH-Lig'Hts 

Y, naturally, bid "two royals," and the bid 
came round to B, who bid "three hearts, " be- 
cause he trusted his partner for the high clubs. 
He thought he could get a spade discard on one 
of his partner's clubs — and possibly even a 
diamond discard on another. This illustrates 
the exact point that I have been making in 
regard to jack-bids. B might have gone much 
higher in his hearts. 

Z, of course, made the sure bid of "four dia- 
monds. " Z held a hand on which any one would 
be justified in bidding diamonds up to five-odd. 

A passed and Y bid "four royals"; naturally 
he did not want to lose those ninety honors. 

Then B did some very clever reasoning. He 
saw that his two adversaries, Z and Y, each had 
a good hand of his own, but that neither one 
held any help for the other. He saw, too, that 
each mistrusted the other and wanted to play his 
own hand . Now B would rather play against dia- 
monds than royals. He, therefore, doubled the 
royals in order to frighten Z back to his diamonds. 

This "bluff" double worked beautifully, for 
Z promptly bid his "six diamonds." Neverthe- 
less, in spite of its cleverness and in spite, too, 
of its success in this present case, it is a plan 
that I do not/ recommend. 

Had Z played correctly he would have argued 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 185 

thus : No one doubles any bid unless he doubles 
every bid. Thus, if B doubled " four royals, " he 
stood ready to double "six diamonds. " Z's bid 
would, therefore, add two tricks to the contract 
without getting away from the double. In other 
words, he would have to play a six-bid doubled 
instead of a four-bid doubled. 

Again, although Z did not hold a single spade, 
he still held wonderful help for a royal-bid. His 
ace of hearts, his three master clubs, and at 
least one of his diamonds should all be counted 
"good" cards. And the mere fact that he was 
chicane was worth 18 points. 

There are no "rescue"-bids; you cannot 
possibly pull your partner out of a double in 
these days. Z made the mistake of his life when 
he bid his "six diamonds. " Had he passed and 
had Y passed (refraining from redoubling because 
of his delight in the double and his fear of 
frightening B back to hearts) then B's bluff 
would have been called, and he would have been 
in a decided trap. 

Nevertheless, although it is easy to criticize 
Z's bid and to see the flaws in it, I do not believe 
there is one player in a thousand who would not 
have made it, nor one situation in a thousand 
where it would have worked so badly. 

Had I been Y, I should have over-called with 



1 86 Auction HigH-LigHts 

"five royals,' ' even though I had been doubled 
at four and was sure of being doubled at five. 
The royal-bid could be made with a decrease of 
contract, and the 90 honors would go far toward 
discounting any possible loss. A hand like Y's 
should be played at royals, at almost any cost. 
His three heart- tricks are his maximum loss, and 
his 90 honors are sure. 

You see, while Z lacked his partner's suit, he 
still had an excellent general hand for assistance ; 
but Y lacked his partner's suit, and had no 
general assisting hand. Also, Y's suit was 
higher, and any honors he held would, of ne- 
cessity, be more valuable. Decidedly, 2 was 
the one to efface himself and to supply the side- 
suits, while his partner furnished the trumps. 

However, after Z's bid of "six diamonds," 
A and Y passed, B doubled, and the hand was 
played at six diamonds, doubled. Y subsided 
and made no further efforts to play his royals; 
this was a pity, but perhaps he felt discouraged 
at being constantly over- called. 

Fortunately for B, his partner (A) led the jack 
of clubs. I should think he would have been 
more apt to lead a spade, "through" the hand 
that was doubled and "into" the hand that had 
doubled the royals. This was a risk that B 
took when he made his bluff double; he fooled 






Thirty-Six Test-Hands 187 

his partner as well as his adversary, and invited 
a lead that would have been thoroughly weak. 
Had A led the spade, Z would have taken in 
Dummy and discarded from his own hand. He 
would then have led another high spade, and put 
B in a very unpleasant position. If B discarded, 
Z also discarded, and led a little spade — ruffing 
in his own hand, in order to pull trumps from his 
weaker adversary (A) and to the tune of two 
trumps from the enemy to one of his own. If B 
ruffed low, on the second spade-round, Z over- 
ruffed and led trumps, making a small slam. B's 
one course would have been to ruff with the ace, 
and lead a heart up to weakness. A would have 
ruffed Z's ace of hearts (making their book) and 
returned a club, which B would have ruffed and 
made his odd. B would have scored 100 points, 
less Z's simple honors (14) and Y's chicane (14), 
or a total of 72 points, provided Z did not discard 
the ace of hearts. When B trumped with the 
ace of diamonds, Z should discard the ace of 
hearts; then, when B led hearts, Z should trump 
with one of his sequence (the six-spot). By 
leading trumps, he would then make his contract 
of six diamonds doubled; 84 points, 50 for con- 
tract, 20 for slam, and 28 for honors. 

But A's club-lead was fortunate. B ruffed and 
led king of hearts, which A ruffed. That made 



1 88 Auction High-Lights 

the book ; then A led a club which B ruffed with 
the jack of diamonds, and of course he took a 
trick with the ace of trumps — a total of two-odd 
for A-B. 

Had Y bid "five royals' ' he would have been 
defeated, but his ninety honors would have gone 
far toward offsetting his slight loss. 

It is easy to criticize and to play results, but I 
think very few players would have refrained 
from Z's six-diamond bid. A's first-round bid 
was a distinct mistake, because his suit was jack- 
high; personally, I consider Y's passing (on the 
last round) another mistake, because he threw 
away 90 points. B's bluff-double was a wonder- 
fully clever bit of strategy, but one which I 
should hesitate to recommend. 

It has been suggested that Y's first-round bid 
should have been "four-royals," to show his 
partner that the hand must be played at that 
suit. It would have been a correct bid, and an 
absolutely safe one. But I don't see how it 
would have changed matters, If B was going to 
make his bluff-double, he would have made it 
just the same; if Z was going to get frightened 
by his lack of spades, and impressed with his 
diamond-suit, — he would have jumped to dia- 
monds just the same. The result would not 
have been changed, in the slightest degree. 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 



189 



A-B would have had the chance of their 
lives at "nullos," — -but "nullos" had not yet 
appeared. 

The four men who played this hand were 
brilliant and practiced players, — not averse to a 
sporting chance, as the bidding testifies. 

Test-Hand No. 8 

This is one of the subtlest hands I have ever 
seen, — in the play as well as in the bid. The 
play of every card is of the most vital import- 
ance, and the discards call for the utmost care. 





9 82 

4k 82 

848 

4b J87432 




9 

4b KQ7654 
AQJ75 
4^ KQ 


Y 

A B 

Z 


^? AQJ963 

* J 

6 

4 A 109 6 5 




^? K 10 75 4 
4» A 10 9 8 
K10 9 2 





Z should certainly open with "a heart" (five 



190 Auction HigH-LigHts 

to two honors, an ace-suit, a king-suit, and a 
blank-suit). 

A should cover with "two clubs, " because his 
clubs will make a better suit with which to ruff 
hearts, and his diamonds will be a strong side- 
suit. 

Y should pass, without a moment's hesitation. 
In the original hand, Y bid "two royals, " as a 
warning to his partner that he could not help 
in hearts. That would possibly have been per- 
missible had A not bid ; but the moment A bids, Y 
is relieved of the necessity of any warning-bid. 
You warn your partner, if he still holds the bid, 
when it comes around to you ; if the bid has been 
taken from him, your responsibility is over. Y 
should pass. 

The score of this game is important; and I 
think B's bid depends entirely upon it. If A-B 
had ten points or so, on the game, I should not 
have B over-call his partner, even though he 
holds a singleton club. That singleton is an 
honor and he holds two ace-suits as side strength 
for his partner — a beautiful supporting hand. 
Many excellent players will not over-call their 
partner, holding two aces, even when they are 
chicane in the partner's suit; they claim that 
those aces are all that can reasonably be de- 
manded of them. 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 191 

If A-B had something on the game, B should 
pass. But as it is a clean score, it would be 
allowable for B to over-call with "two hearts," 
in order to play the hand at a major-suit with 
"two hearts. " It is true that hearts have 
already been bid against him, and that on his 
most vulnerable side. Nevertheless, his own 
hearts are in very close sequence, and he holds 
simple honors and an excellent side-hand. His 
drop from the jack of hearts to the nine, leaves 
but one card between ; his singleton in his part- 
ner's suit and his other singleton and ace of 
spades, give him a strong heart make. It is 
hard to go game in clubs, and it looks as though 
B might manage that feat in hearts. As a 
matter of fact, he just misses it. Twenty- four 
is his maximum score against the best defense. 

I cannot see how any player at that table 
could consider a no-trump bid — Z and A have a 
blank-suit each, Y has almost a Yarborough, and 
B has two singletons. No-trumps would be bad 
bidding from any of them, whether or not they 
could score on it. Yet I received proposed no- 
trump bids from every hand at that table except 
Y. I also had proposed royal-bids from A-B and 
proposed royal-bids from Z-Y. A bid of " two- 
royals' ' from B on the first round could not be 
censured, though I greatly prefer the hearts. 



192 Auction Hig'H-Lig'hts 

Played at clubs, I had letters that give A-B 
a small slam, five-odd, and four-odd " against 
the best defense. " Every one made the correct 
lead from Y — the eight of hearts. 

As a matter of fact, A can take five-odd in 
clubs, against the best defense. Therefore, the 
heart over-call from B, would be a mistake. 

It is obvious that if A can make 24 points at 
clubs, B's heart over-call is unnecessary; B can- 
not make more than 24 himself. But if A can be 
held down to 12 or 18, then B improves the 
situation with his heart-bid. 

If A is playing clubs and Y leads the eight of 
hearts, A should put up Dummy's jack, draw 
Z's king, and then trump in his own hand. This 
will give the command of hearts to him instead 
of to Z and will prevent Z from forcing him to 
trump the suit. It will also put Z in a decided 
box whenever he has to lead. This process is 
known as " ruffing out" a suit and is one of the 
subtlest points the game holds. 

Then A should lead a small club to Dummy's 
jack. Z would hardly let that singleton take a 
trick. He would put up his ace, and then what 
could he lead? He has no spades, and it would 
be suicidal to lead hearts up to that strength. He 
leads a small diamond. 

A takes with the jack, and leads three rounds 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 193 

of trumps; on these, he discards two small 
hearts, and a small spade from Dummy (he 
knows that the ten of hearts lies with Z, by the 
bid, and by Y's lead). 

The third round of trumps throws Z in the 
lead. There is nothing for it but to lead a 
diamond. A takes with the queen, and leads 
two rounds of spades, over-taking the last round 
with Dummy's ace. If Z discards a diamond, 
he unguards his king and A takes all the rest of 
the tricks. If Z discards a heart, he unguards 
his ten, and the result is the same. Two trump- 
tricks are the most that Z-Y can possibly make. 

I had letters, — scores of them, — assuring me 
that A-B could not possibly make more than 
four-odd in clubs; and others that insisted they 
could take but two or three-odd. I think the 
play of the ace of hearts was the crux. 

I will give you a few samples of the solutions 
I received, just to show you what different 
persons do with the same cards. 

First, B played the hand at "two royals/ ' 
taking four or five-odd ; the extra trick depended 
on Z's lead of a diamond or a club. 

Second, the bidding closed at A's "two clubs" 
and he made four-odd. 

Third, Z opened with " a no-trump " (lacking 
spades), A said "two clubs," B "two hearts," 



194 Auction High-LigHts 






and A "two no-trumps," which he made. A 
would not be warranted in making this bid with 
his blank-suit. He needs his partner's hearts, and 
how can he hope to get them? If he makes the 
bid, it is a warning of heart weakness; B should 
over-call with "three hearts, " because of his two 
singletons. 

Fourth, Z opened with "two spades' ' and A 
answered with "five spades." Thoroughly in- 
correct, even granting the use of high spades. 

Some solutions had A play "no-trumps," and 
others had B play it. Some contained doubles, 
and others did not. Some gave the hand to B, 
in hearts, and others to Z, — with the same trump. 
Many had B play royals; and of the ones that 
gave A the play, at clubs, scarcely two results 
were the same. 

I have rarely seen a more interesting hand. 

Test-Hand No. 9 

This is a hand I played myself, with three men 
who came from widely separated parts of the 
world. They were all justly noted players. It 
was the first hand of the rubber, and I was 
playing "Z." 



THirty-Six Test- Hands 



195 





tf 


AK 72 






+ 












KQ J9 






♦ 


A7 432 




9 QJ98 




Y 


£) 10 4 3 


*? 


A 


B 


4b 95432 


10 7 






A 863 


4 KQJ865 




Z 


*io 




tf 


65 






* 


AKQJ1 


086 







5 42 






♦ 


9 





Not being a preemptive bidder, I opened with 
"one club. " My hand held six losers; why 
should even five honors persuade me to insist on 
clubs, if my partner had something better? 

A said "a royal/ ' and Y said "a no-trump/ ' 
and that I do not like. He needed my clubs, 
and how could he get to them, unless I had side 
re-entry? And what re-entry could he expect 
me to have? He and A had all the high spades, 
he had two high hearts and three high diamonds. 
There was only the slim chance of my holding 
the ace of diamonds, or the queen of hearts. 

I should not have cared to have Y say "two 
clubs " when he was chicane. He had wonderful 



196 Auction HigH-LigHts 

side-help ; but I might have made a light bid on a 
hand like this: 

Jf* A J 532 

Then there would have been eight trumps held 
against us and no way for me to lead trumps 
1 ' from the weak hand to the strong, " or to ruff in 
the weak hand. Or suppose I had said "one 
club," on this: 

+ AKQJ 

Then there would have been nine trumps held 
against us. 

I think Y should have passed; his hand and 
my club-bid made it certain that A could not do 
much damage in royals. If, on a later round, I 
said "two clubs," myself, — then I showed a 
really good suit. After that, Y might safely 
raise me several times, on his side-hand. 

However, Y said "a no-trump, " B passed, and 
I over-called with " two clubs. " That, I think, 
should have been warning enough. 

A said "two royals"; I think Y should cer- 
tainly have doubled; his hand and mine could 
now positively defeat any bid. But he did n't 
double; he said " two no-trumps." 

B passed, and again I over-called with "four 
clubs"; — I was sure now that my partner's 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 197 

hand would take care of some of my "losers." 
And this time, every one let me have it. Of 
course, I took everything but the ace of diamonds. 
The score was: 36 for tricks (and game-in), 20 
for slam, 12 for chicane, and 60 for honors; a 
total of 128. 

If Y had doubled the two royals, I think I 
should certainly have overcalled with " three 
clubs." It is against my innermost principles 
to interfere with my partner's double, or to 
change it to a bid. And I never want any one 
to interfere with my doubles. All my doubles 
are " business-doubles " ; I never make one that 
gives the adversaries a chance to jump; and I 
never lose one ! Nor will any one who adheres to 
the doubling laws that I teach. 

Nevertheless, I think the over-call, in this 
case, would be warranted. It meant a sure 
game, — and a game is intrinsically worth 125 
honor-points, because two games are worth 
250 such points. Then my 60 honors were 
not entirely negligible. The 128 points that the 
hand scored, plus the 125 that " game-in" 
represented, — were better than my partner's 
double could have been. 



198 



Auction HigK-Lights 



Test-Hand No. 10 

9 543 

Jft AK76543 

52 



V QJ10 




Y 




9 K9 


* Q8 


A 




B 


4k J 10 9 


KJ109 




z 




AQ6 


4k J 10 7 6 








4k AKQ98 



^7 A8762 

4s» 2 

8743 
4k 532 

This is a hand where Z-Y bid nullos to a grand 
slam, in the effort to make rubber. And they 
won their bid. The bidding opened with "a 
nullo," from Z. A said "a no-trump/' and Y 
said "two clubs.' ' He had seven losing cards 
and a nullo-partner ; upon striking no response he 
switched to nullos and bid them up to seven. 
If A-B had bid "seven royals/ ' or "six no- 
trumps" they would have been defeated. Z-Y 
had all the low cards in the pack ; they held all the 
deuces, all the treys, all the fours, all the fives, 
and three of the four sixes. Yet, thanks to 
nullos, they had their chance. 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 199 

Test-Hand No. 11 





9 


J432 






* 


A643 















* 


A 10 6 5 3 




9 Qio 




Y 


V AK98765 


4t K Q 10 8 


A 


B 


* J 


QJ10 


<> K43 


4 KJ98 




Z 


4 74 




9? 









* 


9752 









A9876 


52 




♦ 


Q2 





/ This was a long-contested rubber-game; the 
score was 28-14, in favor of A-B. Z opened 
with "a diamond," A said "a no-trump,' ' Y 
said u two nullos, " and B "two hearts." Then 
Z dropped his diamonds and switched to nullos ; 
he realized that his hand would be on the board, 
and that its only weak points were the queen of 
spades and nine of clubs. He bid nullos to five 
against A-B's hearts. Thanks to a faulty lead, 
Y made a slam. B led one of his sequence of 
hearts thinking that he might catch Y with the 
lone queen or ten, and that A might get a valu- 



200 



Auction HigH-LigfHts 






able discard on the second or third round. 
Instead, Z got an immediate discard of the spade 
queen. 

Had B gone to "five hearts," he would have 
been set. Z would have led the diamond-ace; 
seeing Y's discard he would have led another 
diamond, Y would have trumped and led his 
two aces, — four tricks in all. In no-trumps A-B 
could also have been set. 

Test-Hand No. 12 



It is the rubber-g; 


rnie, anc 


. the score is 16-0 


in favor of A- 


-B, 


who are, beside, far ahead in 


penalties. 














V 


KQ32 








* 


A 











AK 








* 


A86543 


9 96 




Y 


9 J 10 7 


4t Q643 




A 


B 


cfr K 


<C> Q653 








J 10 98742 


4 Q10 2 






Z 


4 37 




V 


A854 








* 


J 10 9 8 7 


52 


















* 


KJ 





THirty-Six Test-Hands 201 

I will first quote the actual bidding on the 
hand, which is diametrically opposed to the 
bidding I should have done. 

Z, ' ' a club. " (Wrong on the jack-suit. There 
is not an expert that I know of who does not 
decry opening jack-bids; they demand ace or 
king. It is a common thing to hear them say, 
when describing the game of some player; "Oh, 
he is the kind of a fellow who will bid on a long 
jack-suit. " That bid always stamps a game at 
once as unsound.) 

A, "by"; Y "by" (that is a very remarkable 
move when Z-Y are so in need of points); B, 
"a diamond"; Z and A, "by"; Y, "two clubs"; 
B and Z, "by"; A, "two diamonds"; Y, "two 
no-trumps"; B, "three diamonds"; Z and A, 
" by " ; Y, "three no-trumps " ; all "by. " Result : 
small slam for Z-Y. 

The correspondent who furnished this hand 
also suggests an "ultra-conservative bidding" — 
which pleases me much better, and with which 
I can readily agree : 

Z, "a spade." 

A, "by." 

Y, "a royal," or "a no-trump." Every one 
"by." Z-Y can make a small slam in either 
royals or no-trumps. 



202 Auction HigH-LigHts 

Test-Hand No. 13 

This hand came from West Newton. Score 
love-all on the first game : 

ty KQJ10 8 
4* 10 9 5 

K6 
4 J32 



^7 A9765 




Y 




tf 4 


J(* A32 

J5 


A 




B 


4> Q764 
872 


4 K65 




Z 




4)b A 10987 



tf 32 

4» KJ8 

A Q 10 9 43 

♦ Q4 

The actual bidding ran as follows: Z, "one 
diamond"; A, "one heart" (very poor, indeed); 
Y, "no"; B, "one royal"; Z, "two diamonds"; 
A, "two royals"; Y and B, "no"; Z, "three 
diamonc 
Closed. 

I should bid the hand thus: 

Z, "one diamond." 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 203 

A, "no." 

Y, "one heart. " (A major-suit is better than 
a minor one on a clean score, and Y has 64 
honors.) 

B, "a royal." 

Z, "two diamonds." (His ace and his king 
might be "a trick and a raiser" for the hearts; 
but one of them, — the ace, has already been 
announced.) 

A, "two royals," 

Y, "three hearts. " Closed. 

Some correspondents had the hand played at 
hearts; others at doubled hearts; others at 
royals; and others at diamonds. Three different 
suits on the same hand. 

And a fourth might be added now; look at 
A-B's chance to bid "nullos"; of course, they 
have high cards, but they also have low ones in 
the same suit. Except in the spade-suit, their 
hand is a wonderful "nullo." And Z would be 
forced to take the second spade-round and could 
never lead it again. Y could lead it but once 
more. 

A would be the original "nullo "-hand and B 
could raise him. They could make four-odd. 
Of course, Z-Y would never permit them to 
play it. But if Y went to "four hearts," he 
would be set. And if Z went to " five diamonds " 



204 Auction Hig'H-Lig'Hts 

he would be badly beaten, and would have only 
28 honors as an off-set. 

Test-Hand No. 14 

A correspondent who signed himself "Pros- 
pero" sent me this wonderful hand; I am in- 
debted to him for a number of interesting hands 
and he is evidently an expert player. Neverthe- 
less I am forced to differ with him here. 

This particular hand was framed, by another 
reader of The Times, as "the most wonderful 
Auction lesson" he had ever seen. 

The bidding was opened with "three spades' ' 
(as a call to royals) on a combination of cards 
that was a distinct royal-bid in itself. How any 
one could hold six spades to the ace-king and 
three other aces (one a singleton) and ask his part- 
ner to make the trump is a mystery to me. You 
" call " for royals when you are strong enough to 
help, but not to make alone. You certainly do 
not "call" when you have a perfectly splendid 
royal-make yourself. I will give you "Pros- 
pero's" hand, which was bid at three separate 
tables, designated as "Prospero's four," "four 
fairies," and "four juniors"; the score is love- 
all on the first game : 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 



205 





ty 753 








4* K7 6 








KQ J 10 8 43 




* — 






9 — 


Y 




^? KQJ 10 842 


4k Q J 10 9 83 2 


A 


B 


* 


9752 






06 


4 64 


Z 




4k Q J 10 9 3 




^ A96 








4k A54 








A 








4 A K87 5 


2 



I should bid that hand thus : 

Z, "a royal"; neglecting his hundred aces 
because of the singleton, and the awful drop, 
in hearts and clubs. 

A, "by." 

Y, "two diamonds," a warning-bid of weak- 
ness in partner's suit. 

B, "two hearts." 

Z, "two no-trumps" — his partner has the 
suit he lacks. Then it is up to the individuals 
how high the bidding shall run between the 
heart hand and the no-trump hand. 

At "Prospero's" table this was the bid- 
ding: 



206 Auction HigH-LigHts 

Z, "three spades" ; A, "two clubs" (A should 
never help Z out of the hole, especially on a 
queen-suit); Y, "two diamonds"; B, "two 
hearts"; Z, "two royals"; A and Y, "by"; B, 
"three hearts"; Z, "three royals"; B, "four 
hearts"; Z, "four no-trumps." Result, grand 
slam for Z and Y. 

The "fairies "bid it: 

Z, "a royal"; A, "two clubs"; Y, "two 
diamonds"; B, "two hearts"; Z, "two royals"; 
B, "three hearts"; Z, "three no-trumps"; 
B, "four hearts"; Z, "double"; B, "redouble." 
Z-Y took eight tricks before B could get "in." 
They should have taken only seven, but a thou- 
sand points are rather nice, don't you think so? 
The value of four rubbers. 

The "juniors" bid thus: 

Z, "five spades" (hearts too weak); A, "two 
clubs"; Y, "two diamonds"; B, "two hearts"; 
Z, "two no-trumps"; B, "three hearts"; Z, 
"three royals," and was "set for three 
tricks." 

At the first table Z-Y made a grand slam in 
no-trumps with ioo aces — a total of 210 points 
and game-in. At Table 2 they made 1000 
points minus 64, a total of 936, and at Table 3 
they lost 150 points. Which would you choose 
at a dollar a point? 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 



207 



Test-Hand No. 15 





£> K6532 
*5 
964 
4b 10 7 64 




V A4 
Jf» KQ32 
<£> AKJ3 

4 K83 


Y 

A B 

Z 


9 Q10 8 7 
£ A J 64 
82 
4 A52 




tf J9 

4* 10 9 87 
Q10 7 5 

4 Q J9 





This hand shows the futility of bidding nullos 
when your partner has opened with "a spade." 
The score was 20-24 on the first game in favor 
of Z-Y. Z opened with "a spade"; A said "a 
no-trump"; Y was so struck with his own low 
hand that he forgot that his partner had denied 
a hand that could help nullos. He bid "two 
nullos." B said "two no-trumps," and Z 
passed thankfully. Surely now his tale was told. 
But Y went to "three nullos" and was doubled 
byB. 

Of course, he thought afterwards that Z 



208 



Auction HigH-LigfHts 



"should have taken him out." What could Z 
have done? He first denied a nullo-hand, by 
bidding u a spade." Then he passed, showing 
positively that he had not a nullo-assist. There 
was nothing further that could be expected of 
him. 

The opening-lead was the eight of diamonds. 

Test-Hand No. 16 

This came from Ithaca. It was the first 
hand on the second game, and Z-Y were a 
game in. 

^7 J109842 

* — 

AJ5 

4 Q742 



tf 5 




Y 




£? AKQ763 


dfr AQJ109763 


A 




B 


* 


107 








K863 


4* A6 




Z 




4 KJ8 



tf — 

£ K8542 
Q942 

4 10953 



This is the original bidding as sent to me: 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 209 

Z, "one club." (That is pretty weak; I should 
advise "a spade. ") 

A, "two clubs." (Correct; even against "a 
spade* ' I should be tempted to bid those clubs.) 

Y, "two hearts." (I don't like that, even 
with the club-ruff) . B , " double. ' ' 

Z, "by"; A, "three clubs" (I wonder why he 
preferred 6 a trick to 100 a trick); Y, "pass"; 
B, "two no-trumps"; closed. A-B were set for 
100 points. If A had let the double stand, look 
what they could have done. A could have 
made a short lead — ace of spades ; B would have 
given a "come-on" card — the eight; they would 
thus have taken three spade-rounds, three heart- 
rounds, and the king of diamonds even if they 
did n't make a club. They would have won 200 
instead of losing 100. 

14 



210 



Auction HigK-LigHts 



Test-Hand No. 17 

This interesting hand came from Pittsfield. It 
was a clean score. 



> M 


* 



Q8632 

K98 

J9853 




ty j 94 2 

4$ K 10 7 

<C> A J7 652 

* — 


A 


Y 

B 

Z 


^7 K1087653 
4* 954 



4 A64 




* 




AQ 
AJ 
Q10 4 3 

KQ1072 





The original Z opened with "a royal." 
Either that or "a no-trump" would be perfectly 
correct; I should choose the latter on a clean 
score. The answers received are about equally 
divided between the two bids. A then said "two 
diamonds," Y "two royals," B "three hearts," 
and Z doubled. I should have hesitated over 
that double. "A weak double is worse than a 
weak make. " If B bids three, lacking his own 
ace and queen, he is going to do some ruffing. 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 211 

Here are samples of some of the bids sub- 
mitted. The first opens with "a no-trump," 
A says "two diamonds,'' Y "two no-trumps," 
B "double," Z "redouble," and takes four-odd. 

Another opens with "a royal," A bids "two 
diamonds," Y "two royals," B "three hearts," 
Z "three royals," and A "four hearts," which 
Z doubles, but loses. Still another opens with 
"three spades," which Y changes to royals, and 
Z finally plays the hand at "three royals. " 

Test-Hand No. 18 

This hand was played at West Point, and 
occasioned much discussion : 



tf 32 

4k 10 9 6 

952 

4k J9864 



9 KQ97 




Y 




^7 AJ10865 


4» 7543 


A 




B 


4^ AQ82 


J 106 








03 


♦ Qio 




Z 




4k 52 



94 

Jft KJ 

O A K.Q874 
4 AK73 



212 Auction High-Lights 

The score was love-all on the rubber game, 
and this was the original bidding : 
Z, "a diamond." 
A and Y, "pass." 
B, " one heart." 
Z, "two diamonds." 
A, "two hearts." 
YandB, "pass." 
Z, "three diamonds." 

A, "three hearts." (With only two possible 
tricks in his hand, A should certainly wait to 
hear from the original heart-hand. He has no 
suit-support.) 

YandB, "pass." 
Z, "four diamonds." 
A and Y, "pass." 

B, "four hearts." 
Z, "five diamonds." 

A "double." (I think it was the most as- 
tounding double I ever heard. On what was 
it made?) 

Z says that if he had the hand to play again he 
should certainly redouble; being in so deep, he 
might as well go deeper. He counted "four 
diamond tricks in his own hand, four spade 
tricks" (rather optimistic), " and a club trick." 
He made his bid, going game and rubber. 

Many correspondents opened this hand with 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 



213 



"two spades"; Y responded with "a royal,' ' — - 
and after that royals were bid by Z-Y up to 
four, and even five. 

Test-Hand No. 19 

This came from Boston. The score was 24-0 
on the rubber-game, in favor of Z-Y. 





ty A Q84 
4$ A 7 
A65 
4k K874 




9 J65 
4t» K 9 8 6 33 
K82 
*6 


Y 

A B 

Z 


£? K72 
4b QJ104 

QJio 

4k A Q 10 




£) 10 9 3 

*5 

9743 

4k J9532 





Z must open with ' ' a spade' 'or" three spades , ' ' 
according to whether he does, or does not, use 
the "three spade" call for royals. In this hand 
it would be very useful. 

A should pass "three spades"; the score 



214 Auction HigH-LigHts 

might induce him to bid his clubs against "one 
spade." They are weak, but they might help 
B to a declaration and A-B want "game in the 
hand." 

Y should say "a no-trump" in the event of 
Z's "one spade," and "a royal," if Z has said 
"three spades." 

The original B did exactly what I should do; 
he bid "two no-trumps" over Y's "one no- 
trump." He wanted game, and he didn't see 
it in clubs. And he took his chance of it at no- 
trumps. 

Should Y bid "a no-trump" and B pass, Z 
must positively bid "two royals." His hand 
would kill no-trumps. 

The original bidding was: Z "a spade," A 
"a club," Y "a no-trump," and B "two no- 
trumps." Every one "by." 

Test-Hand No. 20 

This was sent me from Biarritz, and the origi- 
nal bidding was not given. The score is love- 
all on the rubber-game: 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 



215 





<? 


A643 






* 


J876 









J42 






4 


73 




y Q9752 




Y 


<7 K10 


4» K954 


A 


B 


* Q10 


Q8 






AK10 


^ 42 




Z 


4 K 10 9 8 6 5 




9 


J8 






* 


A32 









97653 






♦ 


AQJ 





Z must open that hand with "one spade" or 
"two spades"; those who use the call will admit 
that his hand fills the bill: "two quick tricks in 
spades and a side-ace." 

Personally, I should bid that hand "one 
spade" ; it does not impress me as a hand that is 
"too good to waste. " 

If Z opens with "a spade," every one passes 
and he loses 100 less simple honors — or 96 
points. If he opens with "two spades" A will 
pass, and Y will have to bid either "a royal' ' 
or "a no-trump." Were I B, I should pass 
either bid; the royal-bid should be passed, 
because it is obvious that B can set it. He will 



216 .Auction HigH-Lights 






make ioo less simple honors, or 82 points. The 
two-spade call in this case is neither an advan- 
tage nor a disadvantage; it saves just 14 points — 
the difference between spade-honors and royal- 
honors. 

If Ybids "a no-trump," I (as B) should pass. 

I know this will seem absurd to those who want 
to play every hand. Passing on good hands, 
using them as a means of attack rather than of 
defense, is an idea that many players cannot 
grasp. B knows that Y's bid is forced; he 
knows that he himself holds a very fair no- 
trumper. With the score at love-all he should 
take a chance on setting the forced bid; this he 
can do. By bidding royals he cannot go game, 
and good penalties are better than partial games. 
B knows, of course, that the ace and queen of 
spades are with Z and will spoil his chances of 

II game in the hand. " 

N. B. — If players would only learn to pass on good 
hands, to pass conventional bids and forced bids — these 
latter would soon die a natural death. They depend largely 
for their existence on the bids of the adversaries; why 
these adversaries should be so obliging as to step in and 
relieve the situation is beyond my comprehension. I 
know a few players who are wise enough to leave conven- 
tional bids and forced bids in the hands of their creators; 
it is amusing to see what a poor showing these bids make 
against such a defense. They absolutely presuppose that 
on those occasions when the good cards lie against the deal 
their holders will not have sense enough to sit still. 



Thirty-Six Test-Hands 



217 



Test-Hand No. 21 





ty K832 








4* 73 








<> 9765 








4 A 10 6 


9 




9 AQJ76 


Y 


10 9 54 


•fr Q865 


A B 


A 


A J 10 9 


J8 







AK 


4 Q9 


Z 


* 


KJ7 


1 


V — 






4k K42 








Q 10 43 2 








4 85432 






This hand shew 


vs the valu 


e of 


nullos as a 


forcing-bid. 








Z opened with " 


anullo." 






A, "a heart." 








Y, "two nullos. 


>» 






B, "two hearts. 


>> 






Z, " three nullos 


»> 






A and Y, "no." 








B, " three hearts 


> " 






Zand A, "no." 








Y, "four nullos. 


>> 






B, "four hearts. 


»> 







218 



Auction HigH-LigHts 



Z, "fivenullos." 

A, "five hearts." Closed. 

A-B lost the king of trumps, the ace of spades, 
and the king of clubs. Without nullos, Z-Y 
would not even have been in the game. A-B 
would have dealt them one knock-out blow, and 
that would have been the end. 

Test-Hand No. 22 

This hand was originally played in Waterbury, 
and I was asked to decide how long two partners 
should continue to bid against each other on 
these cards: 



^ 983 



^? K6 
4» K J 10 8 6 
10 5 
4 A732 




Y 

A B 

Z 


^7 j 10 4 3 

*3 

AQJ98632 

* — 


9 AQ75 
£ Q9754 
74 

4 54 





THirty-Six Test-Hands 219 

I think that after one warning over- call of 
diamonds B should undoubtedly yield and give 
place to his partner, who holds a better suit. 
True, B holds beautiful diamonds, a club- 
singleton, and is chicane in spades ; on the other 
hand, for aught he knows, A may be equally 
chicane in diamonds. B holds but 14 honors 
and a suit that is worth 7 a trick; his partner 
holds a suit that is worth 9 a trick and a possible 
90 honors; B should certainly stop after one 
warning of his inability to help. 



Test-Hand No. 23 



This hand was played in duplicate boards, 
by four sets of players. When you play Auction 
in duplicate boards the rubber is eliminated; but 
it is always taken for granted that the score is 
"love-air' on each hand, and the effort should 
always be to score "game on the hand" (30 or 
more trick points). 



220 



Auction HigH-LigfHts 





V 


K10 7 






* 


K 10 7 6 3 2 







A53 






* 


K 




^? J53 




Y 


9 AQ 


* 


A 


B 


£ J 9 


K98764 






QJ2 


jk J 10 3 2 




Z 


4 AQ9865 




$ 


98642 






* 


AQ854 









10 






♦ 


74 





At the first table the bidding was correct, 
according to my ideas. It ran thus : 
Z, "a club." 

A, "a diamond." 
Y, " two clubs." 

B, "two royals." Of course, B can raise his 
partner's diamonds; but why play diamonds 
which need five-odd for a game when you might 
play royals and go game in four-odd? 

Zand A, "by." 
Y, "three clubs." 

B, "three royals," — and made five-odd with 
36 honors. 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 221 

At table two, B's royals were never mentioned. 
The bidding ran: Z, "a club''; A, "a diamond"; 
Y, "two clubs"; B, "two diamonds"; Z and A 
"by"; Y, "three clubs"; B, "three diamonds"; 
Z and A, "by"; Y, "four clubs"; B, "double." 

At one table Y made his four clubs doubled. 
At another table the bid was defeated by one 
trick. It all depends upon whether Z does or 
does not take a heart finesse in Y's hand. 

At the third table Z opened with "a club," 
A and Y passed, and B bid his royal. Then 
clubs were bid up to three, and "three royals" 
carried the day. And at the fourth table B 
raised A's diamonds on the first round, and went 
to his own suit (royals) on the second round. 

A correspondent wrote me that they tried 
this hand at a table of four men, and at another 
table of four women, with widely different 
results. The men bid thus: Z, "a spade"; A, 
"by"; Y, "a club"; B, "a royal"; Z, "two 
clubs"; A, "two royals"; Y, "three clubs"; B, 
"three royals"; Z, "five clubs"; A and Y, "by"; 
B, "four royals." My correspondent adds that 
he thinks B should have doubled rather than bid. 

At the women's table this was the bidding; 
Z, " a club " ; A, " a diamond " ; Y, "a no-trump " ; 
B, "two diamonds"; Z and A, "by"; Y, "three 
clubs"; B, "three diamonds"; Z and A, "by"; 



222 Auction HigH-Lights 

Y, "four clubs "; B, " three royals " ; Z, "double " ; 
A, "four diamonds"; Y, "five clubs"; A, "five 
diamonds"; Y, "double"; A, "redouble." 

You would hardly know it was the same hand 
that was under discussion. 

Many proposals reached me for no-trump 
bids from Y. The objection to them is thus 
cleverly stated by an unknown correspondent: 
"Bidding in Y's place, I should reason thus: 
Z has probably five clubs, making eleven in the 
two hands; quite probably, therefore, some other 
suit must lie almost entirely in A-B's hand." 
That is clever reasoning and is a strong argument 
against any high no-trump bid from Y ; his spade 
singleton should deter him. 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 



223 



Test-Hand No. 24 

This came from Boston. Score: Love-all. 

9 942 

4» A2 

KQ1073 

jfc 10 9 4 



9 763 




Y 


1 


9 J 10 8 5 


4k 987653 


A 




B 


* — 


9 








<> AJ852 


4 A73 




Z 




4 J862 



<$ AKQ 
4l K Q J 10 4 

64 
4b KQ5 

About this hand I can see no question. Z 
should certainly open with "a no-trump"; 
the score demands that bid, rather than the 
club ; he holds but one unprotected suit, and his 
hand is two kings and two queens better than a 
standard no-trumper. Every one else should 
pass, unless Y felt inclined to over- call with 
"two diamonds," on his short clubs and worth- 
less hearts and spades. If he did, Z should 
answer with "two no-trumps," and that would 
end it. 



224 Auction HigH-Lights 






But the original hand was bid quite differently. 
Z opened with " a club, " A doubled (why should 
he double when it was absolutely the only suit 
he wanted to play? Of course, some one would 
jump). Y said "a diamond," B doubled 
(oh, those doubles of one-bids!) Z said "two 
clubs, " A doubled, Z redoubled, and the bidding 
closed. Z took four-odd; his score was 42 for 
honors, 54 minus 12 for chicane; 96 points, 100 
contract, 200 extra tricks. A total of 438 on a 
club bid ! 

Do you happen to remember any past warn- 
ings from me regarding doubling one-bids? 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 225 

Test-Hand No. 25 



This came from Rochester, 
deal on the rubber-game. 


It was the first 




ty AQ75432 
4k J732 

— 

4 K9 


4k A 10 8 

K10 7 2 
4k AQJ10 4 


Y 

A B 

Z 


^ J 109 8 6 
4k KQ95 
Q4 
4 32 




e? 





4k 64 

AJ98653 

4* 8765 

The original bidding ran: Z, "a diamond"; 
A, "a royal"; Y, "two hearts"; B, "by"; Z, 
"three diamonds"; A, "double"; Y, "three 
hearts"; B, "double"; Z, "by"; A, "three 
royals," closed. "In the play, A took the first 
trick, which was a club-lead, and made the 
mistake of leading his king of hearts instead of 
trumps, thus allowing Z-Y to establish their 
cross-ruff and take five tricks before A had 
another look-in/ ' 



is 



226 Auction HigH-Lig'Hts 

The correspondent who sent me this hand, 
said he considered A's double a mistake; he 
thought he should have bid royals, on account 
of his 72 honors. 

A ruff in the long trump-hand can always be 
taken, even after the adversaries' trumps are ex- 
hausted. You need never be in a hurry to get 
it. It is only when the shorter and weaker hand 
can ruff, that you play for ruffs before you ex- 
haust trumps (except in the case of a cross-ruff) . 

If A were to play that hand at royals, Y's 
proper lead was the ace of hearts. With seven 
hearts in his own hand, he did n't want to risk 
getting his ace ruffed. 

And why should A want to change his part- 
ner's double to a bid? At three hearts doubled, 
A-B could have made 400 plus 16 for simple 
honors. Is n't that better than 90 honors? 
Is n't it better than game? Or even better than 
rubber? One of B's doubled tricks is worth 
more than A's 90 honors; and B's hundreds begin 
the moment he has taken four tricks, not six. 

Test-Hand No. 26 

This came from Orange. (It is one of the 
most interesting and puzzling hands, I have ever 
received). (The score is 18-0, on the rubber- 
game, in favor of A-B). 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 227 





tf 


643 






* 


K 10 7 6 5 









KQ7 






* 


94 




£? KJ108 7 5 




Y 


tf — 


Jf» A83 


A 


B 


4> QJ942 


109 32 






85 


* 




Z 


4 KQJ10 6 3 




V 


AQ92 






* 











A J64 






* 


A8752 





In the original hand Z bid "one royal," and I 
approve of the bid. He has not a legitimate 
seven- point bid ; but he has five trumps headed by 
the ace, two side-suits, each holding the ace and 
another face card, and a blank suit; his trumps, 
moreover, are just the sort with which to ruff 
that suit. Even if he should lose (which does 
not look probable) he could hardly lose more 
than two-odd, which would be no more than 
he would lose if he played spades. And "a 
royal" will start the adversaries to bidding, 
which "a spade' ' would not. 

I should certainly not want Z to bid "a no- 
trump with a blank suit, and no strong sequences. 



228 Auction HigH-LigHts 

He has his choice between "a no-trump" "a 
royal," "a spade," or "two spades" (and for 
this latter bid he has not quite the requisite 
material; yet it would be correct, because he is 
willing to play either no-trumps or royals, — 
whichever his partner may prefer) . 

The two-spade bid, or the royal-bid would cer- 
tainly be his best choice, — according to my ideas. 

A, " two hearts. " (Correct, of course) . 

Y went by, most luckily. Y has a possible 
raise on his two side kings — one is a " trick, " and 
the other is "a raiser"; but it would have been 
the lightest possible assistance on which to say 
"two royals," and Y, fortunately, did not make 
the bid. 

B bid "two royals," on 72 honors and because 
he lacked his partner's suit. I should certainly 
have done the same; his suit is in such close 
sequence that he need not fear the hand that is 
"over" him. 

Z doubled — and that I do not like. He ran 
the risk of frightening A back to hearts, and 
even though A would undertake a heavier con- 
tract, if I were Z I should rather play against 
"two royals" than "three hearts." His posi- 
tion is better for royals — after the maker instead 
of before him. And his royals are much better 
for trumping clubs than his hearts would be. 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 229 

If Z drives A to hearts Z's own heart-queen will 
be in jeopardy, and he will not care to weaken 
his hand with many club-ruffs. However, he 
doubled two royals. 

A bid "three hearts," Z doubled again, and 
the hand was played at that. Had I been B 
I should have returned to royals, in spite of poor 
position. Those 72 honors would have been 
my comfort. 

Nevertheless, Z's double of the "two royals" 
worked beautifully, for he defeated A badly at 
three hearts. The trouble lay in the fact that B 
had no hearts to lead through Z's ten-ace, and 
the position of the diamond-suit ; A's trump hand 
was long in low diamonds and B's short diamond 
hand held no trumps. 

The original A took but four tricks, which was 
one too few. Y led correctly the nine of spades, 
B covered, Z played ace and A trumped. He 
then made the mistake of leading a low club to 
clear Dummy's re-entry. He should have led 
trumps, even up to the doubling hand — because 
it would be pulling two for one. The moment 
he sees B is chicane, he knows that Z's queen 
and ace of trumps must both take — they may as 
well take first as last. By leading the ten of 
trumps, A makes five tricks, including the ace of 
clubs. 



230 Auction Hig'H-Lig'Hts 

Should A elect to lead clubs, he should lead 
the ace; that is the better way to clear Dummy's 
re-entry, and A holds enough small clubs to 
lead again when it is clear. By leading a small 
club he gives Y the king and Z a discard. 

If B had gone back to royals, his 72 honors 
would have cut down his losses. The special 
questions I was asked to decide were whether B 
was justified in bidding "two royals" when Z 
had bid one, and whether A should have gone 
to hearts after the royals were doubled. Both 
were right. 

A later letter from the correspondent, who 
sent this hand, made the same objection to Z's 
double of "two royals' ' that I have already 
made. Though it worked, it was poor rea- 
soning; moreover, (as this letter says,) Z did 
not know that he would not chase one of his 
adversaries to clubs — which could not have 
suited him at all. This subsequent letter gave 
what I consider the only perfect solution of the 
situation. 

The popular opinion of Z's correct opening- 
lead was "one no-trump." I should dislike it 
exceedingly. 

Z would have an excellent nullo-bid, and Y 
could raise it. They could force beautifully 
with their nullos. 



Thirty-Six Test-Hands 



231 



Test-Hand No. 27 

This hand came from Brookline. The score 
was 24-20 on the rubber-game, in favor of A-B. 





<$ J 7 632 
4* 7 65 

6 

4* 107 6 3 




<? K10 4 
dfr K3 

KJ74 

4* KJ54 


Y 

A B 

Z 


9 AQ95 
4k Q982 
Q53 

♦ Q8 




V 8 

£ A J 10 4 
A 10 9 8 2 
4 A92 





In the original hand, Z bid "a no-trump" and 
every one else passed. Z won the rubber on his 
bid; A led his smallest diamond; B took it with 
the queen and returned his five-spot, which A 
took with the jack; he then led the seven, which 
was very remarkable; Dummy had already 
shown a singleton, and B, in returning the five- 
spot, had placed the ace , the ten, and the nine, 
all in Z's hand. That lead was a gift. 



232 Auction HigH-LigHts 

However, Z won the third round with his 
nine-spot, and led his eight of hearts; I quote the 
explanation : 

"Z realized that if his adversaries opened 
hearts it would be all up with him, so he took the 
chance of finding the suit fairly evenly divided 
between A and B, and of causing them both to 
think that he was well fixed in the suit ; it was a 
long chance, a forlorn hope, but it worked to 
perfection." 

At that score, I (as Z) would have opened with 
"a diamond." And again at that score, I 
cannot imagine any one holding A's cards and 
passing. I should have A bid "a no- trump" 
over Z's diamond bid, or "two no-trumps" over 
Z's "one no-trump." A's position is excellent 
for this; his bid would save rubber even if de- 
feated, and the chance of setting Z's one-bid 
is slight — and not to be compared with taking 
the rubber. 

Y has a very pretty chance to bid nullos, and 
Z could readily respond, in order to "keep the 
flag flying." 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 



233 



Test-Hand No. 28 

9 542 





4^ 7642 
<> 9865 
4 K3 




£? J86 
4* AK 

AQJ10 4 
4 Q95 


Y 

A B 

Z 


^7 KQ 109 7 3 
£ QJ 10 9853 



* — 



* — 

K732 

4k AJ 10 8764 2 



It is the first hand of the rubber-game and 
A-B are 248 ahead in honors. 

My idea of the proper bidding on this hand 
is the following : 

Z, "a royal." 

A, "two diamonds." 
Y, "pass." 

B, "two hearts" (a warning that his partner's 
suit will not fit his hand). It would also be 
correct for B to say "three clubs" on his two 
missing suits. This bid would give him a seven- 
card suit for ruffing diamonds and spades, and a 



234 Auction Hig'H-Lig'hts 






king-queen side-suit. However, the "process 
of elimination' ' calls for the heart-bid; it is also 
less of a contract, and a better suit in which to 
go game on a clean score. 

Z, "two royals/ ' 

A, "three hearts/' 

Y and B, "pass." 

Z, "three royals." 

A, "four hearts." 

Z, "four royals" to save rubber. His dia- 
monds are in a poor position and his partner is 
silent, but the rubber is at stake. 

Z cannot take more than three-odd in royals, 
against the best defense. One correspondent 
gave him four-odd, but that was because he 
allowed A to lead out his ace of diamonds after 
taking the first diamond round. A should never 
do this; he should force Z with clubs or hearts, 
and make Z lead diamonds to him. 

In hearts A-B can make a small slam. A 
should bid them to five, at least; after that I 
think he would feel safer in defeating Z. 

The original bidding on the hand was as 
follows : 

Z, "a spade." 

A, "a diamond." This is the first mistake; 
a good player in A's place would have passed 
instead of helping Z out of the hole. Then it 



Thirty-Six Test-Hands 235 

would be interesting to know what poor Y would 
be expected to do. The only thing that saves 
these spade-makes on strong hands is that the 
adversaries are so unwise as to bid against them. 

Y, "pass." 

B, "a heart." 

Z, "a royal." 

A, "a no-trump" ("two hearts" would be 
much better because of the short black suits). 

Y and B "pass." (B's pass is a mistake; he 
should never permit no-trumps with two blank- 
suits. Think what he could do to those suits 
with either hearts or clubs for trumps !) 

Z, " two royals." 
A and Y, "pass." 

B, "three hearts." 
Z, "three royals." 

A, "three no-trumps." 

Y and B " pass," and the question put to me 
was, "What should Z do, and why?" Also, 
" What was wrong in the bidding? " 

Z-Y have a wonderful nullo opportunity! 



236 



Auction HigH-LigHts 



Test-Hand No. 29 

^? A72 
4> QJ87 
J863 
4 83 



<? 943 


Y 


£7 KQJ1065 


*3 


A 


4* A 10 5 


KQ10-2 




94 


4 J9762 


Z 


A 104 



tf 8 

tfr K9642 

A75 
4 AKQ5 

The score was love-all on a new rubber and 
the original Z opened with "two spades," as a 
call for no-trumps. He had the standard two- 
spade call — "two tricks in spades, and one 
outside ace, leaving partner to decide between 
no-trumps and royals." A passed, and Ysaid, " a 
club," which I think was very remarkable; he 
holds three protected suits, and is but one king 
below the average hand; in the place of that king 
he holds a jack. He has almost an independent 
no-trumper, and should certainly have responded 
to the no-trump invitation. B bid hearts, and 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 237 

Z raised the clubs to four, which closed the 
bidding. Y played "four clubs" and made 
them. When the hand was over Z was severely 
criticised for his failure to open with "a no- 
trump, " and asked my opinion. 

Of course, Z had the no-trump call, but I think 
his hand was too good to call ; he should have bid 
the no-trump. He has but one unprotected 
suit, and his hand is well above the average — 
two aces, two kings, and the rest as it should be. 
Failing the no-trump, he should have bid "a 
royal." To the score I should choose the no- 
trump. The singleton heart is a drawback to 
either make ; with only four trumps you cannot 
do much ruffing. 

One correspondent opened with " a no-trump," 
B bid hearts, and Y answered with "two no- 
trumps." B had then his choice of setting the 
bid and forfeiting his 64 honors, — or of bidding 
"three hearts. " At this he could be slightly set 
provided Z-Y were clever enough to kill the 
ruff in the weak hand. Z should lead ace, then 
king, of spades, and Y should echo. Then, 
with the object of killing Dummy's club-ruff, — 
Z should lead his trump, Y should take with the 
ace and lead again. Thus Dummy could ruff 
clubs only once, instead of twice. B would lose 
the ace of trumps, two rounds of spades, the ace 



238 



Auction HigH-LigHts 



I 



of diamonds, and the king of clubs. He would 
lose 50 undoubled, or 100 doubled, and would 
have 64 honors, as an off -set. 



Test-Hand 


No. 30 




ty 98643 






•fr 52 








K9862 






*3 






9 J 


Y 




ty KQ752 


4k 984 


A 


B 


A A 


Q10 5 






A3 


4fc KJ10754 


Z 




^ Q9862 




<? A 10 








<$» K Q J 10 1 


'63 




J74 








* A 







It was the rubber-game and the score was 
27-18, in favor of Z-Y. 

Clubs and royals were bid against each other 
until Z-Y went to " six clubs' ' ; A-B doubled and 
made 300. But the very next hand Z-Y went 
rubber on a small slam in hearts with 64 honors. 
That, of course, could not be foreseen, but it 
made A-B wish they had bid their royals up 
above the clubs on the previous hand, and closed 



Thirty-Six Test-Hands 



239 



the rubber on their own account. Could they 
have seen each other's hands they would certainly 
have done so. Doubling is good, but rubber is 
generally better. 

The remarkable thing about this hand is that 
the ten of diamonds is the vital card. 

Test-Hand No. 31 

This came from Long Island. It was the 
first deal on the rubber-game. 

9 A6 

4> K J 10 8 5 4 

J 

4 K10 7 6 



ty KQJ985 




Y 




^ 10743 


& A962 


A 




B 


* Q7 


94 








A 10 8 6 


*5 




Z 




4fc A84 



V 2 

4* B 

KQ7532 
4 QJ932 

The original bidding ran as follows : 
Z, u a diamond.' ' 
A, "a heart." 



240 Auction HigH-Lights 

Y, "a royal." 

I don't like that at all; Y has a " royal-assist/' 
but certainly not a royal-bid; four trumps to the 
king-ten is far too light for a bid, even with good 
side-suits. The value of the diamond singleton is 
destroyed, because ruffs are too expensive when 
you hold but four trumps. What was the matter 
with a "two club" bid from Y — or even a "two 
diamond," — or "a no-trump"? The diamond 
singleton and short hearts would weaken the 
latter; but it would certainly be better than the 
royal. Never bid on a four-card suit, unless three 
of the four cards are honors, — and one of those 
honors is ace or king! 

However — 

Y," a royal." 

B, "two hearts." 

Z, "two royals" (naturally), 

A, " three hearts. " 

YandB, "by." 

Z, " three royals." 

A, "four hearts." 

Rather high. A holds seven losing cards — 
one trump, because he lacks the ace; one royal, 
two diamonds, and three clubs. Those are all 
"losers." His partner has raised once, which 
shows two "takers " — a trick and a raiser. Two 
takers from seven losers leaves five losers, or a 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 241 

two-bid; and A is making a four-bid. A should 
wait and see whether his partner can announce 
another raiser. 

Y and B, "pass." 

Z, "four royals. " Closed. Z-Y lost contract 
by one trick. He should have made it. 

The error in that hand was Y's initial bid; 
every one of Z's raises was legitimate. Z has 
two trump tricks and three side raisers — his 
two singletons and the king of diamonds. The 
latter, of course, had been announced in his 
opening-bid. Even though Y could take four- 
odd, his bid was wrong. It was unusual luck to 
find so many trumps and two singletons in Z's 
hand. When submitted to the readers of the 
Times, this hand was variously played at "five 
diamonds"; at "four royals" and set; at "four 
royals" and not set; at "three no-trumps" 
doubled; and at "three hearts. " 
16 



242 



Auction HigH-Lights 



Test-Hand No. 32 

This hand came from Peekskill ; no bidding was 
given and my advice was asked. The score was 
love-all on the first game : 





V J3 








4* 543 








AKQ105 




4* QJ8 






9 K 


Y 




9 10 6 54 


£ A K J 10 9 


A 


B 


4k 872 


62 






<> 974 


4fk AK643 


Z 




4 10 7 2 




ty AQ987 


2 




* Q6 








J83 








4 95 







This would be my bidding : 

Z, "a heart"; A, "a royal," in spite of those 
clubs. The club honors are 48, I know, but it 
takes five-odd to go game in clubs, and only 
four-odd in royals; I should always rather play 
a major-suit, with a clean score, and the clubs 
would make a splendid side-suit. It would 
be perfectly correct for A to say either "two 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 243 

clubs" or "one royal," but I should choose the 
latter. 

Then Y has his choice of raising his partner's 
hearts (holding an honor and a splendid side- 
suit) or of showing his own diamonds. I should 
show the diamonds and let Z fit that information 
to his own hand. It is not as though Y's bid 
were the initial-bid, for his side. His partner 
has already bid in a major-suit ; if Y mentions his 
diamonds, it may help in the ensuing decision. 
And if he is left to play them, he will have his 
56 honors. If Z's hand warrants a two-bid in 
hearts, he can make it without increase in con- 
tract; if it does not, — then the diamonds are 
better. 

Some players, holding Y's cards, would bid 
no-trump on partner's hearts, diamond-suit 
solid, and sequence stopper in spades. This, 
of course, if A did not bid clubs; if he did, no- 
trumps would be killed for Y, and I don't like it 
anyhow. I, as Y, should say "two diamonds." 
B must pass, unless he is playing nullos. 

Z can pass, or say "two hearts." He has an 
honor in his partner's suit, and Y's bid of dia- 
monds would look as though he had not much 
heart-help. Of course, it is not as though Y had 
made an "over-call" — that is, if he had changed 
Z's hearts to diamonds, with no intervening bid. 



244 Auction HigH-Lights 

The over-call would have been a positive warning 
of heart-weakness. Y's diamonds are a minor- 
suit, and Z's hearts a major-suit. I think I (as 
Z) should say "two hearts," and should use the 
diamonds for side-suit. 

A has had no signal of royal-help from his 
partner; he can try the "shift" and go to "three 
clubs' ' to get his honors and to try to strike an 
answering spark; or he can say "two royals/ ' 
And I should emphatically say royals; it is a 
lower bid, and is worth as much. A has the 
certainty of losing one trump-round, two dia- 
mond-rounds, and the king of hearts. That is 
four lost tricks ; his hand warrants a bid of "three 
royals, " even with no response from B. 

Z-Y can bid hearts to three but not to four. 
Therefore the bid should close at A's "three 
royals. " It is not the rubber-game, so there is 
no excuse for expensive flag-flying. If A-B can 
be prevented from going game, Z-Y would be 
wiser to hold them down than to risk being 
penalized. 

When this hand was given in the Times, it 
brought scores of answers. It was played at 
hearts, at doubled hearts, at diamonds, at 
doubled diamonds, at royals, and at clubs. No 
wonder the original players wanted advice as to 
bidding. 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 245 

Test-Hand No. 33 

Here is one of the most interesting hands I 
ever saw ; it came to me from Northampton : 





tf 


AQ86 






* 


Q65 









A73 






♦ 


QJ6 




9 — 




Y 


^ KJ1097432 


4* A J 109 4 2 


A 


B 


*7 


<> KQ10 94 






J6 


4 A8 




Z 


4 92 




9 


5 






* 


K83 








* 


852 

K 10 8 7 5 


4 



This hand holds tremendous possibilities both 
of bid and of play. A-B are one game in, and 
this is the first hand of the second game. 

I cannot imagine any dealer opening that 
hand with "a spade," rather than "a royal." 
Of course, as I have already told you, the most 
conservative authorities demand either the ace, 
or the king-queen, for a first-round bid. Z has 
neither, but I certainly think it would be a waste 



246 Auction HigH-LigHts 

of golden opportunities for him to say "a spade. " 
To my mind, he should not hesitate a moment in 
bidding "a royal.' ' He has an eight-point 
make running to the king, a side-singleton, and a 
well-guarded side-king. Let us, therefore, im- 
agine him to say a " royal.' ' 

A must choose between "two diamonds" and 
"two clubs." The "process of elimination" 
demands the former, although the latter gives 
him one extra trump with which to ruff his 
blank-suit. We will imagine him to say "two 
diamonds." 

Y's choice is between "two royals" and "two 
no-trumps." I should choose the former with 
that beautiful raising hand ; three trumps to two 
honors and two side-aces for "raisers" are all 
that the most exacting of partners could demand. 
And royals are almost as valuable as no-trumps. 

On the other hand, Y's hand perfectly warrants 
a two no-trump bid if he prefers it. No one 
could criticize it; I merely prefer to have the 
third-hand "dovetail" his bid with his partner's, 
unless his suit is infinitely more valuable. Y 
knows that his hand and his partner's will "fit" 
in royals; he does not know whether they will 
fit, or not, in no-trumps. 

Let us suppose that Y bids "two royals"; 
B will be almost sure to say "three hearts. " 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 247 

As Z, I should not say " three royals" unless 
to save rubber ; if B's bid would give him rubber I 
should bid. But as it would not I should pass. 
Z holds a losing heart, three losing diamonds, two 
losing clubs, and at least one losing trump 
(because he has not his own ace). That makes 
seven losing cards. Y has shown an ability to 
take two rounds — that is, he has shown "a trick, 
and a raiser." But, even so, that leaves five 
losing cards — a two-bid, but not a three-bid. 
Unless Y can take a third round, " three royals" 
would not go through. Z should pass and leave 
Y the choice of a raise. 

A does not greatly care for the fact that he is 
chicane in his partner's suit; on the other hand, 
his cards hardly warrant a warning- bid of "four 
clubs," or "four diamonds." And he does not 
need to make a warning- bid, because he has two 
perfectly sure tricks for his partner — outside the 
diamond-suit which he showed by his bid. A 
passes. 

Y would have a right to say "three royals" 
if he chose. He has "a trick" (his queen of 
trumps) and two "raisers" (his aces). He has 
used but one of those raisers, and now has a 
perfect right to use the other. Still, if he stops 
to count his losing cards, he has six or seven; that 
is rather a big allowance for a three-bid. 



248 Auction Hig'H-Lig'hts 

Z-Y can make but the odd in royals; A-B's 

cross-ruff kills their bid. They would, therefore, 
lose ioo minus their 36 honors; a total loss of 
64 points — but nothing below the line. By 
permitting B to play three hearts, they lose 24 
points, plus simple honors, plus chicane — a total 
of 56. And they permit A-B to get dangerously 
near the end of the rubber. 

If B goes to four hearts, he will be down one; 
and if Y bids no-trumps, he can make but the 
odd — provided B leads properly, his jack of 
diamonds to his partner's bid. 



Thirty-Six Test-Hands 



249 



Test-Hand No. 34 

I think this hand is one of those that came to 
me from California. 

^7 Q J 107 65 
K964 



tf A 




Y 




9 K983 


4b KQ875 


A 




B 


4* 42 


<> J7 








A8532 


4b K6543 








4b 87 



V 42 
4k AJ96 
Q10 
4b A Q 10 9 2 

The score is 18 all on the rubber-game. 

Z,"aroyal." 

A, "by" (delighted). 

Y, "two hearts' ' (backward bid of warning, 
to show weakness in partner's suit) . 

This would end the bidding if the rubber were 
not at stake — but two hearts will put Y-Z 
rubber. Therefore, when B and Z pass, A 
should bid "three clubs,' ' to save rubber. His 



250 Auction Hig'H-Lights 

singleton ace of hearts and his spade-king on the 
safe side of the bid, together with five trumps to 
the king, queen, all make it probable that his 
losses will be slighter at three clubs than they 
would be in losing the rubber by Y's heart- 
bid. 

Y will say nothing further, B will pass, and 
Z would feel more hopeful of defeating three 
clubs than of making three royals ; his partner's 
warning bid, and the fact that his trumps are 
scattered and should be led up to, would com- 
bine to make him pass. 

A, therefore, plays the hand at three clubs. 
He loses two tricks — ioo undoubted, or 200 
doubled. Even that is better than rubber; by 
allowing Y to play hearts, A loses 24 points, plus 
16 honors, plus 250; a total of 290, and definitely 
ends his chances of the rubber. 

Y could bid and make " three hearts," but I 
do not think he would do it. He would be more 
apt to wait and see whether Z would give him a 
raise or would prefer to go back to his own royals. 
You see, Y lacks the two master-cards of his own 
suit and holds wretched side-suits. His spade 
singleton is his only real asset. So he leaves the 
responsibility to his partner, Z; and Z, on his 
part, prefers the certainty of defeating A. 

A correspondent who sent me the best solution 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 251 

of this hand had Y play "two hearts," and B, 
therefore, led. B led a spade, because it is 
"through strength." 

Every one knows this rule of leading through 
strength, but not one in ten seems to know the 
remainder of it, "but not through a sequence." 
There is no object in leading through strength 
that is sequence-strength, because the strong 
hand can take the trick and still command the 
suit. The lead does not cripple him at all. 

For this reason I do not like the blind opening- 
lead through the strength of a declared suit 
(unless the leader plays a singleton). Because 
in leading through declared strength you do not 
know till you see the hand whether or not it is 
sequence-strength. If it is, the lead will hurt 
you more than it hurts the adversary. 

In this particular case, Z's spade-strength is 
not sequence-strength. But B does not know 
that when he leads. I have seen more harm 
than good come of such leads. Be sure to 
remember the whole of the rule: "Lead through 
strength, but not through a sequence." 

Test-Hand No. 35 

This is a California hand. The correspon- 
dent who sent it said that it had "caused end- 



252 



Auction HigH-Lig£Hts 



less discussion"— 
imagine* 


-a 


thing wh 


ich I can rea 


lllit* wiX*V • 


9 
* 


AKQ82 

Q 

85 

A9874 




9 754 
<f» AJ987 

<|fc KJ2 


A 


Y 

B 
Z 


$ J96 
4k 10 6 
AQ3 
4fc Q 106 5 3 




9 
* 



* 


10 3 
K5432 

10 9 7 6 4 J 


I 



It was the rubber-game and the score was 18-0 
in favor of A-B. There were heavy penalties 
against Z-Y. 

The original bidding was very unusual; it 
ran as follows : 

Z, " a diamond. " This was a grave error, and 
carried false information. I suppose Z hated to 
say "a spade, M because he had none. To say "a 
spade" does n't mean that you hold spades (you 
would bid a " royal "under those circumstances) ; 
it means you have a wretched hand, and that is 
just what Z has. When he says "a diamond," 



THirty-Six Test-Hands 253 

he announces that he holds "a playable suit, 
headed by the ace or king, or (at a pinch) the 
queen. " Y might have a stopper in each of the 
other suits and on his three stoppers and Z's 
announced suit he might go to no-trumps after a 
bid by A. If A said "two clubs, " and Y stopped 
the clubs and said "two no-trumps, " where 
would they be? Such a bid is too misleading for 
future bids and doubles. 

I do not say Z could not take the odd in 
diamonds; he could. But he gives his partner 
false information regarding his hand, and that 
may make trouble in raises, doubles, or no-trump 
bids. Very few bids stop at one. Tell the 
truth in your bid. However — 

Z, "a diamond." 

A, "two clubs." 

Y, "two diamonds." 

B, "two royals." 
Z and A, "by." 

Y, "two no-trumps" — (fancy that, with a 
club singleton when A had bid clubs). My 
correspondent added that Y "lost a lot." 

I should bid that hand as follows: 

Z, "a spade." 

A, "by." If A could take two-odd in clubs 
he should bid ; his hand does n't look like two-odd 
to me; if every trump in his hand takes, and if 



254 Auction HigH-LigHts 






both his side-kings take, it is just the odd. And 
it would be an optimist who would expect such 
results. 

Y," a heart." 

B, "by," because the odd in hearts, scored 
against him, is not very terrifying, considering 
the state of the game. Also, he has har- 
vested good penalties which he does n't want to 
jeopardize. 

If B bids "a royal," Z will say "two hearts," 
A, "two royals," Y, "three hearts/' and it will 
close. If A bids clubs on the first round and if 
B raises the bid (which he should never do), 
they will lose. 

If Z-Y are using nullos, they can do some 
excellent forcing. They can bid two safe nullos; 
and, as neither A nor B can see their hands, and 
as A, especially, would not care to play nullos, 
Z-Y could probably force A-B up in royals, 
and set them. Z-Y should bid nullos to three, 
in this hope. 



Thirty-Six Test-Hands 255 



Test-Hand No. 36 

^ QJ6 



9? K10 7 

£ AQ976532 

— 

4 32 




^ 985432 

dpi K10 

<> KQ1042 



A Q 10 9 7 4 



The score is 10-0 on the rubber-game in favor 
of Z-Y. And the situation offers a very pretty 
chance for clever flag-flying. 

I could write forever on this hand and the 
bids it elicited. However, I will simply sum- 
marize. 

One correspondent had A-B "fly the flag" up 
to "five clubs," which Z covered with "four 
royals, " and closed the bidding. 

Another had A go to "six clubs" to save 
rubber. Z doubled, naturally. 

Another had B bid diamonds up to four, 



256 Auction High-LigHts 

which Z covered with "four royals, " — "to his 
undoing. " A doubled, Z redoubled, and lost 
one trick. 

A number of solutions closed the bidding at 
A's "five clubs," letting him "lose 50, less 24 
honors." Others closed the bidding at "three 
royals. " 

Two very clever solutions that broke all rules 
came to me from two widely-separated points; 
they were identical. As I have said, I dislike 
tampering with the rules, except in very excep- 
tional cases. However, this was done, not from 
carelessness, nor ignorance, — but after deep 
thought. This is the irregular bidding: Z, 
"a royal"; A, "two clubs"; Y, "two royals"; 
B, "three hearts" (because clubs are a poor suit 
on which to take game or to compete with royals, 
and no one has yet named hearts). After that, 
royals and hearts are bid against each other by 
all four players till the bid rests at "five hearts. " 
One correspondent made this final, — and the 
other left it open whether Z should double, or 
bid "five royals." 



CHAPTER XIII 

DECISIONS 

During the past year, many interesting 
questions have been referred to me for decision. 
In every case, it has been emphatically stated 
that my decision would be considered final. 
But as there were bets laid, in several cases, it 
seemed fairer to me, to have more than one 
opinion. Therefore, whenever it was a question 
of judgment rather than of fixed laws, I first 
made my own decision and then consulted two or 
three expert players. In every instance, the an- 
swers were identical. And also, in every instance, 
I have received the most courteous of letters, ex- 
pressing absolute satisfaction in the decision, — ■ 
even when it has been made against the writer. 

Thinking some of these questions might 
interest my readers, I have chosen a few for 
publication here. 

Query I 

This came from Pueblo, Colorado. It was 
the first hand on the rubber-game. A-B were 

257 



258 



Auction HigH-LigHts 



about 700 ahead in penalties (that suggests 
some plunging to me) . 

The crosses in the diagram represent small 
cards. I give the hand just as it was sent to 
me, — with the original bidding: 





9 98 








£ K 10 X X X 






K82 








4 10 8 4 


9 




^7 A10XXX 


Y 


Q5 


4» AJX 


A B 


* 


4 


A Q 10 XX 







JXXXX 


* 


Z 


* 


AQXXX 




ty KJ74 






4k Q932 








— 








4k KJ974 






Z, "one spade.' 


t 






A, "two diamoi 


ids." 






Y and B, "pass 


»» 






Z, "two royals. 


M 






A, "three diam< 


Mids." 






Y, "double." 








B, "redouble." 








Z, "three royals 


, " 







Decisions 259 

A, "four diamonds. " 
Y, "double." 

B, "redouble." 
Every one "pass." 

Y's first lead was a small club and these were 
the questions I was asked to decide : 

First. — Was Z's first bid correct, or should it 
have been "two royals " ? 

Second. — Was Z right in bidding "three 
royals" to take partner out of redouble? 

Third. — Was Y justified in doubling the first 
time? 

Fourth. — Was Y justified in doubling the 
second time? 

Fifth.— Correct lead for Y. 

As there were bets on the hand, I consulted 
several expert players to see if their views 
coincided with mine. They did. I will first 
make a few comments on the bidding, and then 
answer the questions. 

It is what I should call "primitive" bidding; 
by that I mean that it is just the kind of bidding 
every one did when they first began to play 
Auction ; I did it, too. We all bid our hands just 
as they looked to us ; if they looked like three-odd, 
we bid three-odd, at a blow. We bid "a spade," 
to wait and see what would happen. We 
doubled high bids on general principles. We 



26a Auction HigH-Lights 

doubled the only suit we could defeat; if the 
other side got out, we consoled ourselves by 
bidding our own suits against theirs (not realizing 
that we were taking but 6 or 8 a trick instead of 
the 50 we might have had). We paid no atten- 
tion to penalties, to losing cards, to " warning "- 
bids from partners, to "raisers," to suit-help 
rather than trump-help — to anything that I 
consider a mark of good bidding. We thought 
of but three things : to bid our hand up to its top 
notch, to "cut out" bids from adversaries, and 
to make the best sense we could out of what the 
other three players said — even though we were 
all treading on rather vague footing. 

Honestly, now, did n't we all use to bid in 
that way? Does n't every beginner bid in that 
way? The strange thing is that many otherwise 
faultless players still bid in that way. 

The advent of the new count and the longer 
practice at the game have emphasized many 
points that we neglected at first. The result 
is the school of bidding that I have been up- 
holding and explaining for nearly two years. 
Under its laws the bidding on the hand given 
would run as follows : 

Z, "one royal. " (We decided that "a spade" 
from Z was not open to fair criticism, but that 
"a royal" was infinitely better). 



Decisions 261 

A, "two diamonds.' ' 

Y, "by" — he has two kings which he might 
consider "a trick and a raiser," but he has a 
very poor hand, and unless Z himself holds a 
"two-royal" hand they would stand to lose. 
If Z holds it, let him bid it. 

Then every one should pass and the bidding 
would be closed. 

The result is the same in either case — A plays 
the hand at diamonds. All that agonizing on 
the part of Z-Y was unnecessary, ridiculous, 
and expensive. They could n't stop results, 
and it cost them big money to try; the forcing- 
bids, the doubles and redoubles, the " rescue "- 
bids had just this result, that A's hand brought 
him 604 instead of 299. And that extra 305 
was a gift from Z-Y. 

You cannot stop the tide of events unless you 
have the proper equipment. You cannot "save 
rubber" unless you have the cards; flag-flying 
can be one of the most expensive amusements in 
the world. 

A-B made five-odd in diamonds. They were 
bound to make it, and could bid their hands to 
that point without any risk. Z-Y had not cards 
enough to get the bid from them. 

A-B should have scored five tricks at 7 each 
(35) > plus H honors (28 minus chicane), plus 



262 Auction HigK-Li^Kts 

250 for rubber. Instead of which their five 
tricks were worth 28 apiece, and they got 100 
points each for contract and extra trick. 

Does n't it all make sense? Is n't it both 
safer and saner than so much plunging? 

These, then, would be my answers to the five 
questions : 

Decision : — 

First. — Z's best opening bid is "a royal." 
However, "a spade" was not open to criticism. 
He should certainly not say "two royals. " 

Second. — If I had been Z I should never have 
bid " three royals' ' to rescue Y from a redouble. 
Y knows Z's suit and has another chance to bid. 
Let him rescue himself or stay in. 

Third. — Y's first double was distinctly bad. 

Fourth. — So was his second. 

Fifth. — Y's proper lead was the ten of spades 
to his partner's bid. He had no good lead of his 
own. 

Query II 

Z, the dealer, was playing a " three royal" 
hand; he held five spades to the ace- king, and 
some side-help. A (second hand) had doubled 
him, holding five small spades and considerable 
side-strength. Y (Dummy) held the jack and 
ten of spades, and B, of course, held the lone 



Decisions 263 

queen. Z took it for granted that A, having 
doubled him, must hold the queen of trumps. 
The first lead was a side suit, and the trick was 
taken in Dummy. Then Z led Dummy's jack 
of trumps ; as he did so, he said to A, "I am going 
to give you your queen, " and detached the deuce 
from his own hand, so that it was visible to all 
the players. To his surprise B played the queen. 
Z then attempted to push the deuce back into his 
own hand, and it fell, face-up, on the table. He 
left it there and covered B's queen with his own 
king, taking the trick. 

A " called' ' the deuce and claimed the trick 
both on the strength of the exposed card and 
that of the speech. 

Z denied A's right to both the card and the 
trick, and the case was referred to me. 

Decision: — A's claim could not be sustained. 
The declarant can expose a card without suffer- 
ing the penalty of having it called (see Chapter 
VIII, on Exposed Cards). And the speech, 
while a serious breach against etiquette, was like- 
wise immune from punishment. 

Query III 

Z, the dealer, opened the bidding with "two 
spades." A said "a heart"; and Y (third- 



264 Auction Hig'H-Lig'Hts 

hand), said "a no-trump," — which Z, later, 
raised to " three no-trumps," and played the 
hand. 

The hand should have been played by Y, as 
he was the original no-trump bidder. The error 
was not discovered till the sixth round. 

Z made game and rubber; A-B then claimed 
that the hand should not stand, as rubber could 
not have been scored had Z's hand been exposed, 
— as it should have been. 

Decision: — The hand certainly stands. The 
original error was made by A-B, when the wrong 
player led. Any advantage that accrued to 
Z-Y was therefore the fault of A-B. Z-Y can 
certainly not be penalized (by being made to 
forfeit the hand), for an error of the adversary. 

The moment all four players had played to 
the first trick, the opportunity for correcting 
the error was lost. 

Query IV 

The wrong adversary leads, — the ace of clubs. 
The declarant calls the card and demands that it 
be laid face up, upon the table. The proper 
leader then leads a small club, and the owner of 
the club-ace claims the right to play the ace 
and take the trick. This claim the declarant 
denies. 



Decisions 265 

Decision: — The claim is sustained. The 
declarant has the right to force an adversary to 
play an exposed card, but he has not the right 
to force him to retain such a card. (See Chapter 
VIII, on Exposed Cards.) 

Query V 

Are losses on a " one-spade' * make limited to 
100, if doubled by the opponent and not re- 
doubled? 

Decision :-^The losses on a "one-spade" 
make are always limited to 100. 

Query VI 

We had taken nine tricks, and then got three 
more on a revoke, — making twelve in all. Are 
we entitled to score 20 for little slam? 

Decision: — A slam can never be scored on a 
revoke. 

Query VII 

Toward the close of a hand, one of our adver- 
saries led out of turn, and exposed the ace of 
diamonds. I was the Dummy, and my remain- 
ing diamonds, lying on the board, were the king 
and three small ones. The proper leader sat on 
my right; he immediately led the queen of 



266 Auction HigH-LigHts 

diamonds, through my king, and to the ace 
which his partner had shown. My partner put 
up the king, which was taken by the ace. 

I claimed that they could not play the ace of 
diamonds after having so exposed it; I objected 
strenuously, but was overruled. 

Was n't that hand practically dead? As we 
were ahead before this hand arose, did n't we 
win the game? Could we not call a suit from 
them? 

Decision": — Xo hand is dead because of an 
exposed card. No game can be taken because 
of such a card. Had it been the original lead, 
you should preferably have called a suit. 

The ace of diamonds, in this case, should have 
been laid on the board. Then, when the other 
adversary led the queen of diamonds, the declarant 
should have played a lew diamond from Dummy, 
and should have called the ace on the queen. This 
would have made the king good, and would have 
penalized the wrong lead and the improper 
advantage taken of that lead. 

Query VIII 

This came from Virginia ; it is a matter, not of 
etiquette, but of judgment, — and it struck me as 
being very interesting. 



Decisions 267 

The score was game-all, and love-all on the 
rubber. Z-Y were ahead in honors and penal- 
ties. Z dealt and bid " one royal' ' ; A held these 
cards : 

Z> K J 10 2 

4» KJ 

AQ6 

4fc Q 10 5 2 

He said "one no-trump," correctly, of course. 
Y bid "two royals, " and B held this hand: 

4> Q 10 9 8 4 3 2 

85 

*• 

He bid "three clubs." 

Then Z opened the second round with "three 
royals. " A said "three no-trumps, M played 
the hand, and was set. A discussion then arose 
as to B's call of "three clubs, " which had caused 
his partner to venture on " three no-trumps." 

The two questions put to me were: 

First. — Should B have made that bid? 

And, second. — Should A have gone up in no- 
trumps? 

A three-bid is very high on a weak queen-suit, 
even with a side-singleton. It was evidently 



268 Auction Hig'H-Lig'hts 

prompted by A's no-trump bid. I should have 
hesitated to make it, and yet I think it absolutely 
warranted by the circumstances. It was more 
than allowable — it was even desirable. With 
both the adversaries bidding royals so freely, it 
looked as though they might well go rubber; and 
B's own hand held nothing to discount this 
belief. The point is here: By bidding "three 
clubs" B positively denied a hand that could help 
no-trumps, and showed a hand that must be played 
in suit. 

He would greatly have preferred to say "two 
no-trumps, " if possible. He didn't have to 
stop the royals to do this ; his partner had already 
announced a royal-stopper. If B had held a 
long-established suit of clubs, he w^ould have 
used it to raise the no-trump bid. He would 
have done this, even lacking side re-entry, 
because his partner must have at least one club 
to lead. No one bids no-trump with a blank 
suit. 

Again, if B had held a long scattered suit of 
clubs headed by the ace, and some side re-entry 
in the shape of guarded honors, he would have 
chosen the no-trump bid without hesitation. 
Therefore, his bid denied a hand that could help 
no-trump, proclaimed a hand that must be played 
in suit, denied a strong established club-suit, 



Decisions 269 

denied a scattered club-suit headed by the ace, 
backed by a side re-entry — and showed nothing 
but a hand whose one hope of saving rubber was 
to bid on a long, weak suit; the length of that 
suit would presuppose shortness in some other 
suit and hopes of a ruff. Ruffs and no-trumps 
are not synonymous. 

Coming then to A, I consider his bid distinctly 
bad, and far more open to criticism than his 
partner's " three clubs. " It showed less insight, 
less acumen in reading what B had striven to 
tell him. Of course, A wanted rubber, and 
rubber looked easier in no-trumps than in clubs. 

But — A's stopper in spades was in a very pre- 
carious situation. Royals were being bid on both 
sides of him. It might well happen that the ace 
was on one side of him and the king on the 
other, and the jack might be anywhere. 

He knew positively that B's club suit was not 
established, because he himself held the king- 
jack. Therefore, it must be long and weak, and 
B held no side-tricks or he would have said no- 
trumps. This marked three of the four aces and 
two of the four kings as being in the enemy's 
hands; five tricks, enough to set the bid. Of 
course, the club-ace might have been in B's hand. 

Even then he had denied side re-entry, and A 
would have to overtake his own jack to get in. 



270 .Auction HigfH-LigHts 



There were then two aces and two kings against 
him — the adversaries' book. The clubs could 
not last forever, and the adversaries' royals 
would be established on the first few rounds. 
The moment clubs were finished and A started 
on another suit, the enemy would come in with 
one of those adverse kings or aces and would slide 
down the line with the remaining royals. 

Decision: This then would be my opinion 
of the situation: 

I consider the three-club bid entirely war- 
ranted by the circumstances, and the three no- 
trump bid very poor. A should have played to 
defeat the royals, or at least to save game. He 
had an almost sure spade-trick, a club-trick, and 
a possible ruff, a diamond-trick, and a heart- 
trick. A much better hand to save game than 
to go game ! And a chance to get back some of 
those lost penalties, rather than to let the adver- 
saries pile up more ! 






CHAPTER XIV 

THE HUMAN SIDE OF THE GAME 

The human side of the game has two aspects ; 
first, as regards one's self; and second, as regards 
the other three players at a table. 

Every player should make it his aim to be 
thoroughly unselfish and thoughtful of the 
comfort of the others. He should rid himself 
of all annoying mannerisms. I know faultless 
players who render every game a burden. Some 
hum tunes under their breath ; some keep up an 
incessant tattoo with their fingers, on the table; 
some close their cards in a tight little pack after 
each play, and have to run them all over every 
time they want a card ; the cards should always 
be kept in a close fan-shape in the hands of the 
players. Some hold their cards too far away, 
and have constantly to be asked to hold them up. 
Some "snap" every card they play; this is as 
hard on the cards as it is on the nerves of the 
other players; cards should always be played as 
noiselessly as possible. Some cover the cards 

271 



272 Auction Hig'H- Lights 

with their hands, as they play them, — thus 
rendering it impossible to see them; all cards 
should be tossed or dropped. Some (these are 
women of course) always load the card-table 
with a mass of gold-bags, handkerchiefs, chains, 
vanity-cases, etc., — which constantly jingle, 
and which take up room intended for other 
things. Some players are always trifling with 
the "still" pack of cards, so that there is no way 
of marking the deal. And many, many players 
are execrable winners and execrable losers. 

Excessive slowness is maddening and un- 
necessary. You have to decide sometime; learn 
to do it with a fair degree of celerity. Any 
undue emphasis given to the play of a card, 
whether by manner, gesture, or speech, is an 
outrage against etiquette. 

Constant explanation and discussion are 
wearing and unnecessary. Nobody is dying to 
know just why you did a certain thing, — and 
your explanations will rarely convince them of its 
correctness. 

Not every one can play a faultless game; but 
every one is certainly capable of the highest 
degree of etiquette and courtesy, — and these 
two things go far towards making up for any 
lack of skill. 

After attending to yourself, learn to study 



THe Human Side of the Game 273 

all the persons with whom you play. Practice 
character-analysis. Auction is a combination 
of Whist and Poker, — that is what gives it its 
fascination; and it has been justly claimed that 
Poker, more than any other card-game, requires 
insight into human nature! In one respect, 
there is a wide difference between the two games ; 
" bluff " will not go, in Auction, because every 
hand is played to the finish, and because you 
have a partner. 

But you must study your partner and your 
adversaries. If you know a man is determined to 
play every hand, you can "force" the bid much 
more successfully than if you are playing against 
a man who is wise enough to "drop," and to 
leave you to play your forcing-bid. If you see 
a player is an inveterate bluffer, call his bluffs. 
If you realize that, although he knows his rules, 
he is given to breaking them, ' ' just for this once, ' ' 
draw your own conclusions accordingly, and 
don't trust him as implicitly as you would a more 
conservative player; if your partner is ultra- 
conservative, take an occasional risk yourself — 
just to make a good average; if he is risky, stick 
to rock-bottom solidity in your own play. If 
luck is with you, gamble on it; if it is against 
you, never try to force it — limit your losses. Be 
reliable, be conservative, but don't be wooden. 
18 



274 Auction HigH-LigHts 

But, after all, written instructions on this 
head are useless. Insight into human nature 
and the ability to cope with a given situation 
are inborn, acquired, or lacking. If acquired, 
actual experience is the only teacher. Printed 
matter will help you in your game, your rules, 
your choice of method. But it can never give 
you insight. 



CHAPTER XV 

AN AUCTION " BROMIDE 1 ' 

The favorite method of " damning with faint 
praise" in Auction is this: if a man's game does 
not suit you, you smile, shrug your shoulders, 
and say: "Oh, he plays Bridge, not Auction! 11 

This has become such an Auction "bromide" 
that I pray I may always be delivered from it. 
Nevertheless, this fact remains: if any one plays 
"Bridge not Auction," it is the preemptive 
bidder. He has grasped one of Auction's poten- 
tialities, — the bid. He has utterly failed to grasp 
that even greater opportunity, — the penalty- 
field. The man who neglects this, is still playing 
Bridge,— Bid-Bridge! 



275 



CHAPTER XVI 

LUCK 

There is a prevalent superstition that "luck 
at cards' ' always evens up! To this I voice an 
emphatic dissent. Why should card-luck be the 
only thing in the world, of which every one receives 
an equal share ? We all know that other things 
don't "even up, " — why then this? 

I know that it does not. I know it by statis- 
tics, and by records kept for years, of the hands 
of various players. 

There are proverbially good holders and 
proverbially bad ones. Luck may even up in 
life at large, but not necessarily in any one line. 
The old French proverb says, " Lucky at cards, 
unlucky in love." Some have luck in one line, 
some in another; the woman who is less beau- 
tiful may be more fascinating, or more lovable, 
or more clever (or she may not). But it would 
be manifestly absurd to say that all women have 
an equal share of that one gift, beauty, or that 
they will have it if they wait long enough. 

Did any one ever claim that "beauty evens 
276 



L\ich 277 

up in the long run"? Or brains? Or charm? 
Why luck in cards, then? I believe that luck 
is as real as the nose on your face. And I think 
it is a distressing deterrent to the perfection 
of so scientific a game as Auction. 

Does business-luck always "even up" ? 
Leaving ability out of the question, are n't there 
some men to whom opportunities always come, 
and others who rarely have a chance? Of 
course there are! It is so well-recognized that 
we often hear it said of a certain man, — u 0h, 
he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth!" 

Many persons who read this will insist that 
their "luck always evens up in the long run." 
That is because they are average holders ; the ec- 
centric holders, whether good or bad, will testify 
to the contrary. And, as in everything else, the 
average class greatly out-numbers the eccentric 
class; otherwise, the classes would be reversed! 

Let me then repeat, if card-luck always 
"evened up," it would be the only thing in the 
entire Universe that did. And that, I think, 
would be a much greater phenomenon than that 
some players should generally hold good cards, 
and others should generally hold poor ones! 

THE END. 



The Fine Points 

of 

Auction Bridge 

Together with an Exposition of 

The New Count 

By Florence Irwin 

16°. Revised Edition. $1.25 net By mail, $1,35 



CONTENTS 
The Deal — The Score — Encouragement and 
Discouragement — The Book — The Phraseology 
— The Opening Bid — Subsequent Bids — The 
Double — Keeping the Flag Flying — The Play — ■ 
Hints — A Warning against Over-Bidding — Rais- 
ing Your Partner's Bid — Losing Rubbers — A 
Condensed List of Bridge Laws — In Any De- 
clared Trump — Brilliancy vs. Solidity — In No- 
Trump — The New Count — Test Hands 1 to 1 6 
— Compass Auction — Team Auction and Tourna- 
ment Auction — The Laws of Auction Bridge — 
The Revoke — Other Penalties. 

G. P. Putnam's Sons 

New York London 



The Fine Points of Auction Bridge 

There are many persons who have some 
knowledge of Auction Bridge, but who are per- 
fectly conscious that their game needs improving. 
It is for their use that this book is intended. It 
shows the practical workings of the game ; gives 
a few terse rules to cover the situations that are 
constantly arising; answers the questions that 
seem still to be asked, after the reading of other 
books on the same subject ; describes the various 
"schools" of play adopted by contending au- 
thorities (thus making it necessary to read one 
book only, instead of six or eight); and in 
short, bridges the chasm that yawns between fair 
Auction and excellent Auction. 

The author explains fully the New Count. 
This latest development of the game has sprung 
into immediate and universal popularity, and is 
sweeping the country like wildfire. It has given to 
Auction its one lacking touch — a perfect balance 
between red suits and black, — and has made it 
as nearly perfect a bidding-game as it is possible 
to conceive. 



The Development of 
Auction Bridge 

Under the New Count 
By Florence Irwin 

To an analytical mind, the changes 
wrought in Auction by the New Count 
are very marked and very fundamental. 
The entire basic principle of sane bid- 
ding and sane doubling has been 
altered; methods which were formerly 
sound are now both unsound and futile. 

In her new volume, Florence Irwin 
dissects these changes without forcing 
her readers to wade again through pages 
of description of the game itself. Por- 
tions of the present volume have ap- 
peared in the New York Times, and the 
test hands especially all awakened 
lively interest on their first appearance. 

G. P. Putnam's Sons 

New York London 



"Not only the best writer on Auction, 
but the best exponent of any card game I 
know of."— Jin Old Card Player. 

The Development of 
Auction Bridge 

Under the New Count 
By Florence Irwin 

Author of " The Fine Points of Auction Bridge " 

Includes the Latest " Rules of Auction" 

Adopted by the N. Y. Whist Club 

September, 191 2 

16°. $125 net By mail, $135 

"Miss Irwin is quite the best com- 
bination of author and instructor, man 
or woman, we have read on the subject. 
She has that rare gift of catching the 
high lights of her subject and of not 
allowing them to be obscured by any- 
thing. ' ' — Wholesalers and Retailers Review* 

G. P. Putnam's Sons 

New York London 



OCT 23 1913 



